"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Carrying a slung rifle in a crowd of people is not peaceful under any
circumstances. Its only functional purpose in that situation is to kill.
Since it's highly unlikely it will be used to kill, the only remaining
purpose is an affective one: to intimidate.

That wasn't about "rights." It was about threats.

This was Arizona, it wasn't New Jersey. If it had been viewed by those in
power as a
threat, the guy would have been hauled away.

Nope, there was a conflict between the strict interpretation of the law and
the reality of what was going on. The SS said they had a perimeter in mind,
and he wasn't crossing it alive. I believe them.


He had legal right to do that in the state he was in.

That's right.


I think this is a matter of perception. For example in 1996 or so, my
brother and I were
breakfasting in a diner in Lajita's, TX. We had to be the only people not
carrying arms
in the diner. I felt very safe though a bit under dressed.

Wes, that has nothing to do with what went on here. These were people
demonstrating to make a point. They admitted as much. And anyone with any
sense knows that the point was that the point was to kill. That's why one
carries a gun in a social situation like that -- he carries it to kill, or
to threaten someone with killing. There is no other point to carrying a gun
in open carry, unless you're out plinking or shooting targets. And they
weren't.


Might as well tell you the rest of the story, we were bicycle touring
south west Texas,
wearing the typical cycling jersey and lycra shorts.

Jeez, I used to race road sprints, and even *I* won't wear that stuff. g

I asked my brother if he felt
underdressed and he looked quizzically at me since were dressed pretty
normal for what we
were doing. He asked what did I mean and I pointed out that we seemed to
be the only ones
not carrying. My brother, who is not into guns, chuckled.

g

--
Ed Huntress