The new face of the Second Amendment?

[haymarket]

Several people here in Michigan are testing their ability to openly carry weapons in school zones.

Gun rights tested at Madison Heights, Ann Arbor schools

The public reaction has not generally been too favorable to these folks.

Is this sort of "in your face - its my right and screw everybody else who does not like it" attitude the new face of the Second Amendment?

Does a man like Nixon (not the president but the man in the article) help or hurt the cause of the Second Amendment?

Does this story - and others like it around the nation - show an increasingly radicalization of some on the gun issue and an increasingly polarization on the entire issue?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Several people here in Michigan are testing their ability to openly carry weapons in school zones.

Gun rights tested at Madison Heights, Ann Arbor schools

The public reaction has not generally been too favorable to these folks.

Is this sort of "in your face - its my right and screw everybody else who does not like it" attitude the new face of the Second Amendment?

Does a man like Nixon (not the president but the man in the article) help or hurt the cause of the Second Amendment?

Does this story - and others like it around the nation - show an increasingly radicalization of some on the gun issue and an increasingly polarization on the entire issue?

Does the existence of people with your viewpoint show polarization of the issue? The very existence of gun free school zones shows polarization, gun free school zones accomplish literally nothng

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yep, having a right is one thing but actually exercising that right is quite another.

If we let this happen then soon folks will be wearing offensive T-shirts on school property - that constitutional right not to be offended is the only one that really matters.

 

[soot]

Supervisor: "We've been advised by school administrators that they don't want you on school property, OK? You cannot open carry on school property."

Nixon: "Actually, you can open carry on school property, with a CPL."

Supervisor: "Not if the school administrators tell you not to."

Oh, look, more jack-booted thuggery.

According to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and the laws of the state of Michigan a licensed gun owner is permitted to openly carry within a designated gun free school zone.

What the administrators "tell you to do" is completely immaterial, they don't make the law and they're not a force of law unto themselves.

That "Supervisor" should be fired by the people of that community immediately.

But because of public sector unions, of course he won't be.

Not a day goes by that there isn't a new report of cops trampling all over people's rights.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Oh, look, more jack-booted thuggery.

According to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and the laws of the state of Michigan a licensed gun owner is permitted to openly carry within a designated gun free school zone.

What the administrators "tell you to do" is completely immaterial, they don't make the law and they're not a force of law unto themselves.

That "Supervisor" should be fired by the people of that community immediately.

But because of public sector unions, of course he won't be.

Not a day goes by that there isn't a new report of cops trampling all over people's rights.

Well it depends, why was the open carrier there? I don't know about Michigan, but in Washington you can't just go hang out at the school because you want to while students are present. You have to be conducting legitimate business at the school

 

[soot]

Well it depends, why was the open carrier there? I don't know about Michigan, but in Washington you can't just go hang out at the school because you want to while students are present. You have to be conducting legitimate business at the school

Fair enough. Clearly there are facets of this story of which we're unaware.

The impression I get from reading the article is that the guy was just out taking a walk around his neighborhood.

Maybe he didn't have pressing business that brought him to the school, but neither, it would seem, was he doing anything particularly suspicious or menacing.

Either way, from the article:

"He can go on school property as long as his weapons are in plain sight" and "he'd have to have a CPL (concealed pistol license)," said Madison Heights Deputy Chief Corey Haines.

So I read that as the bureaucrat/politician saying that what this guy doing wasn't illegal.

But still the cop, a supervisor no less, not a rookie two weeks out of the academy, took the law into his own hands and infringed on the man's rights.

 

[LagerHead]

Does the existence of people with your viewpoint show polarization of the issue? The very existence of gun free school zones shows polarization, gun free school zones accomplish literally nothng

Not true. It signals criminals that they will meet no resistance and criminalizes behavior protected by the Constitution. What more could you ask for from a supposedly well-meaning government?

 

[Thrilla]

Several people here in Michigan are testing their ability to openly carry weapons in school zones.

Gun rights tested at Madison Heights, Ann Arbor schools

The public reaction has not generally been too favorable to these folks.

Is this sort of "in your face - its my right and screw everybody else who does not like it" attitude the new face of the Second Amendment?

Does a man like Nixon (not the president but the man in the article) help or hurt the cause of the Second Amendment?

Does this story - and others like it around the nation - show an increasingly radicalization of some on the gun issue and an increasingly polarization on the entire issue?

it's a matter of can versus should.

can the man carry legally in a school zone?... yes.. it's perfectly legal, provided he does so openly while possessing a CPL

should he?... well, that's a different matter in which even pro-gun rights advocates are split on.... it's simply a matter of opinion.

it's no different than free speech issues where folks are free to say what they want legally, but still open themselves up to differing opinions on whether they should say those things or not.
in the end, we usually agree that people can say things things, but differ on whether they should..... and nobody ever says thing like " is this the radicalization of the 1st amendment?"

ammophobes are really the only ones who see the lawful exercising of 2nd amendment rights as "radicalization", though will find find some agreement with their opposition along the lines of "should they?"

in any event, none of us should be supportive of the state interfering in the man lawfully exercising his rights.... the state is only concerned with "can"...they have no compelling interest in the "should" argument.

 

[haymarket]

it's a matter of can versus should.

can the man carry legally in a school zone?... yes.. it's perfectly legal, provided he does so openly while possessing a CPL

should he?... well, that's a different matter in which even pro-gun rights advocates are split on.... it's simply a matter of opinion.

it's no different than free speech issues where folks are free to say what they want legally, but still open themselves up to differing opinions on whether they should say those things or not.
in the end, we usually agree that people can say things things, but differ on whether they should..... and nobody ever says thing like " is this the radicalization of the 1st amendment?"

ammophobes are really the only ones who see the lawful exercising of 2nd amendment rights as "radicalization", though will find find some agreement with their opposition along the lines of "should they?"

in any event, none of us should be supportive of the state interfering in the man lawfully exercising his rights.... the state is only concerned with "can"...they have no compelling interest in the "should" argument.

And that is the difference between the radical right on this issue and the good old common sense of most Americans.

 

[Thrilla]

And that is the difference between the radical right on this issue and the good old common sense of most Americans.

what is this difference you are speaking of?..

 

[haymarket]

what is this difference you are speaking of?..

I think we saw the difference in polls a year ago which showed that a very big majority of Americans - over 80% and in some polls 90%, favored background checks on ALL firearms purchases when such proposals were poison to the right of the NRA crowd. These same people - many of which re gun owners and even NRA members - can use common sense in knowing the difference between the right to keep and bear arms and having some egomaniac with a perpetual machismo problem running around a school with a firearm just to show what a big man he is and what his rights are.

That is the difference I am talking about.

 

[Thrilla]

I think we saw the difference in polls a year ago which showed that a very big majority of Americans - over 80% and in some polls 90%, favored background checks on ALL firearms purchases when such proposals were poison to the right of the NRA crowd. These same people - many of which re gun owners and even NRA members - can use common sense in knowing the difference between the right to keep and bear arms and having some egomaniac with a perpetual machismo problem running around a school with a firearm just to show what a big man he is and what his rights are.

That is the difference I am talking about.

as I suspected.

 

[TurtleDude]

The insanity of the anti gun left as demonstrated by Democrat politicians is what is causing some of the more outspoken rights advocates to engage in the publicity stunt

 

[Thrilla]

The insanity of the anti gun left as demonstrated by Democrat politicians is what is causing some of the more outspoken rights advocates to engage in the publicity stunt

no no, don't you see .. it's "common sense" ...
the State stopping a person from lawfully exercising their constitutional rights... "common sense"
the state providing , by law, an environment where only mass murdering scum have firearms to use on the thousands of children who are mandated , by law, to be present in this environment... "common sense"
the state mandating every citizen to have the duty to search the legal background of any person whom they sell a legal product to, despite not having a constitutionally permissable enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance ... "common sense".

when zealots make the argument of "common sense" , the odds are great it's because they know such a shallow appeal is the only basis in which they can make the argument.. going any deeper opens the argument to a scrutiny that never passes muster.... it's an anti-intellectual appeal, at it's very core...critical thinking is impermissible in appeals to "common sense"

 

[TurtleDude]

no no, don't you see .. it's "common sense" ...
the State stopping a person from lawfully exercising their constitutional rights... "common sense"
the state providing , by law, an environment where only mass murdering scum have firearms to use on the thousands of children who are mandated , by law, to be present in this environment... "common sense"
the state mandating every citizen to have the duty to search the legal background of any person whom they sell a legal product to, despite not having a constitutionally permissable enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance ... "common sense".

when zealots make the argument of "common sense" , the odds are great it's because they know such a shallow appeal is the only basis in which they can make the argument.. going any deeper opens the argument to a scrutiny that never passes muster.... it's an anti-intellectual appeal, at it's very core...critical thinking is impermissible in appeals to "common sense"

in forty years of directly engaging hoplophobic idiocy, I have yet to see anything remotely approaching common sense from the gun banners

 

[MickeyW]

Several people here in Michigan are testing their ability to openly carry weapons in school zones.

Gun rights tested at Madison Heights, Ann Arbor schools

The public reaction has not generally been too favorable to these folks.

Is this sort of "in your face - its my right and screw everybody else who does not like it" attitude the new face of the Second Amendment?

Does a man like Nixon (not the president but the man in the article) help or hurt the cause of the Second Amendment?

Does this story - and others like it around the nation - show an increasingly radicalization of some on the gun issue and an increasingly polarization on the entire issue?

It can't hurt the 2nd Amendment, but it sure can negatively impact gun owners.

They did this s**t in Calif. a few years ago and the Legislature went in and removed the Open Carry clause in Calif. law.
The dummies shot themselves in the foot.
In Calif. it's illegal to Open Carry and Concealed Carry is very limited!

 

[MickeyW]

Not true. It signals criminals that they will meet no resistance and criminalizes behavior protected by the Constitution. What more could you ask for from a supposedly well-meaning government?

:applaud:applaud

 

[MickeyW]

in forty years of directly engaging hoplophobic idiocy, I have yet to see anything remotely approaching common sense from the gun banners

That's for damn sure!

 

[MickeyW]

My thinking on this is this:

If you have a concealed carry license.....then do so...conceal it, instead of getting anti-gun nuts in a tizzy....the always liberal, anti-gun nuts have enough on their plate as it is, being mentally defective and all ........and they can barely cope when gun issues come up.

 

[haymarket]

in forty years of directly engaging hoplophobic idiocy, I have yet to see anything remotely approaching common sense from the gun banners

That speaks volumes about what you have opted to "see".

I am reminded of the words of Paul Simon - "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Your comment about what you have seen fits that perfectly.

 

[ocean515]

Several people here in Michigan are testing their ability to openly carry weapons in school zones.

Gun rights tested at Madison Heights, Ann Arbor schools

The public reaction has not generally been too favorable to these folks.

Is this sort of "in your face - its my right and screw everybody else who does not like it" attitude the new face of the Second Amendment?

Does a man like Nixon (not the president but the man in the article) help or hurt the cause of the Second Amendment?

Does this story - and others like it around the nation - show an increasingly radicalization of some on the gun issue and an increasingly polarization on the entire issue?

So is your objection the "in your face - its my right..." approach?

Because if it is, your condemning just about all of the efforts used by liberal/progressive activists.

 

[Thrilla]

That speaks volumes about what you have opted to "see".

I am reminded of the words of Paul Simon - "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Your comment about what you have seen fits that perfectly.

irony.

 

[haymarket]

So is your objection the "in your face - its my right..." approach?

Because if it is, your condemning just about all of the efforts used by liberal/progressive activists.

I did not realize Mr. Nixon was a progressive activist. What part of the story contained that information?

 

[haymarket]

irony.

No - its really nothing to do with irony. I was NOT the one who proclaimed that they had not seen any "common sense" in forty years of dealing with the other side. So your charge of IRONY is not at all applicable or relevant.

 

[ocean515]

I did not realize Mr. Nixon was a progressive activist. What part of the story contained that information?

I didn't mention anything about Nixon, nor did I make any comparisons to Progressives.

I asked if your objection was the "in your face - it's my right.." approach.

It seemed like a rather simple question.