On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:00:20 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:

In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
00:33:32 -0500, Don Foreman, wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:41:49 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:

It's ARIZONA! Any day of the week you can go to
an auto parts store in Flag, and find at least 10% of
the customers there with sidearms carried openly. You
can walk down the streets of Sedona and see guys
wearing six-shooters. Are these people ALL trying
to intimidate me? It takes a special kind of
insecurity to make that jump in logic.

People from MN and NJ need to spend a little time
in AZ to see for themselves that there's no more
ill-will behind everyday open carry than there is when
someone walks around with a Leatherman on his belt.
Both are tools, generally carried for the purpose of
"just in case," nothing more.

I don't need to spend time in AZ to take your word for that. I admit
to finding it a bit surprising. Open carry is legal in most of MN but
nobody does it in towns or urban settings.

The actions and "statement" of the guy in AZ were noted in places far
removed from AZ, thanks to the media. I don't question, challenge or
deny that his act was within his rights, that is NOT MY POINT. I
maintain that his act was ill-considered and foolish as regards the
preservation of his rights and mine. That's the part that bothers
me.

It should maybe bother you more that his actions
should have any repercussions on your rights at all.

Is there perhaps a typo here? I'm not sure what you're saying. His
actions wouldn't bother me a bit if they have no repercussions on my
rights. He can have an AR-15 slung on each shoulder and a 1911
duct-taped to his forehead for all I care -- unless that affects
public opinion beyond AZ in a way that might eventually impugn my
rights.

His act is only a viable statement if it's remarkable. If his conduct
is unremarkable in AZ, as you assert, then it was a faint statement
there.

Had I been there, I wouldn't have given him a
second thought.

Then I needn't worry about your being persuaded to vote for stiffer
controls. That still leaves a few other voters and pols in question...

The 2d amendment is not an inalienable or God-given right.

The 2nd amendment spells out your inalienable/
God-given right.

If that right was God-given and inalienable there would be no need for
the 2d amendment. It would be redundant and we wouldn't be having this
conversation.

A right is something you're born with. A privilege
is something given. A right cannot be taken away
(legally), but it can be waived.

Sorry, that's wrong. Some constitutional rights are denied to felons
but nevermind that since neither of us are felons yet. Well, I'm not
anyway. Citizens have constitutional rights and citizenship is
conferred by birth (or by naturalization). A right that is
conferred by the constitution or an amendment thereto, the 2d in this
case, can be modified or abolished by a subsequent amendment. For
example, the 21st amendment repealed and reversed the 18th. The people
voted and made it so.

Maybe the problem is too many people believe the
right to keep and bear arms is actually a privilege.

It is a right conferred by the 2d amendment to the constitution. That
amendment can be modifed, nullified or repealed by a subsequent
amendment.

If the people of our country were to become sufficiently offended by
damned fools offensively abusing their 2d amendment rights, those rights
could be curtailed or eliminated.

Not lawfully... though as Hitler amply demonstrated,
anything can be done legally. All it takes is to pass
a law to legalize it. (Does that invoke Godwin?)

It definitely invokes Godwin.

One media-darling-for-a-day damned fool isn't an epidemic. I'm not
worried, but I'm still bothered a bit by one who must display his
weapon in public, in crowds, at a political rally, to "make a
statement". I interpret that "statement" as "lookitme, I'm
significant because I have a gun and the right to carry it whether you
like it or not!" That interpretation of defiance is supported by his
reported death wish for the president.

You may interpret his "statement" differently in Arizona.

I personally wouldn't interpret it as defiance
unless it was something approaching civil disobediance.

Just a manner of dress so to speak? Some guys have body piercings,
others tattoos, a few adorn themselves with AR-15's? "Oh, Guy, that
rifle is so YOU!" I think you're right, I gotta come visit Arizona.
I might like it.

In this case, the guy broke no laws, breached no
etiquette, and only in separate statements, came across
as a bit less than "enlightened."

I agree that he broke no laws and I'll accept your assessment that he
breached no Arizona etiquette. But the media put it on a national
stage. As you have seen, the reaction is not the same everywhere as
your reaction in AZ.

I think the biggest difference between the way the
"message" played in AZ as opposed to elsewhere was the
emotional response.

Yes indeed. The event/act may well have been yawnably unremarkable in
Arizona to Arizonians.

Unfortunately, thanks to the media's 1st-amendment-protected
irresponsible appetite for sensationalism, his audience extended far
beyond AZ to some places where opinions were apparently quite
different.

So why should anybody in AZ cares what various dainty urbanites in NJ
or MN might think? Well, said DU's are also U.S. citizens who can
propose amendments and vote for them, and there are a whole lot of
urbanites in the US outside of AZ. The time and notion of people
minding their own damned business seems to be long gone in this
internet age.