[Redbull72]

Saw this video clip on CNN. Never heard of these guys (RTC: Restore the Constitution).

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/09/19/dnt.carry.guns.openly.wxia

I see the point just not sure that carrying those ARs isn't more intimidating than inviting. The idea is to bring folks over for a talk, and not to fuel those who attach the word "Nut" to gun. Even the protester admits to feeling uncomfortable, although he asserts that he has been conditioned to feel this way.

 

[CoffeeMate]

What's with all the yellow tie-wraps on those weapons? :screwy:

 

[robfromga]

Saw this video clip on CNN. Never heard of these guys (RTC: Restore the Constitution).

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/09/19/dnt.carry.guns.openly.wxia

I see the point just not sure that carrying those ARs isn't more intimidating than inviting. The idea is to bring folks over for a talk, and not to fuel those who attach the word "Nut" to gun. Even the protester admits to feeling uncomfortable, although he asserts that he has been conditioned to feel this way.

I agree, to a point. While I see zero issue with a sidearm, seems like a "assult rifle" would just fuel the bed wetters.

 

[CoffeeMate]

I agree, to a point. While I see zero issue with a sidearm, seems like a "assult rifle" would just fuel the bed wetters.

Someone else's incontinence is their problem, not mine.

 

[jlcnuke]

What's with all the yellow tie-wraps on those weapons? :screwy:

The "rules" for their "rally" included that all rifles etc be unloaded with chamber flags or similar inserted... I checked out their "blog" site and found that last night, as well as a political candidate who claimed to be a "Constitutionalist" though he apparently doesn't know when it was ratified.

I'm still not sure what the "rally" was supposed to accomplish outside of getting news coverage noting that the group exists.

 

[robfromga]

I agree, to a point. While I see zero issue with a sidearm, seems like a "assult rifle" would just fuel the bed wetters.

Someone else's incontinence is their problem, not mine.

you missed my point

 

[CoffeeMate]

I agree, to a point. While I see zero issue with a sidearm, seems like a "assult rifle" would just fuel the bed wetters.

Someone else's incontinence is their problem, not mine.

you missed my point

I do not believe I did. Perhaps you missed mine? :lol:

 

[CoffeeMate]

What's with all the yellow tie-wraps on those weapons? :screwy:

The "rules" for their "rally" included that all rifles etc be unloaded with chamber flags or similar inserted... I checked out their "blog" site and found that last night...

How is that legal under State pre-emption?

 

[Redbull72]

A quote from the website: http://restoretheconstitution.wordp...-restore-the-constitution-open-carry-rallies/

Why: 1) To practice gathering together while armed 2) to show friends, foes, and neutrals alike what can be done and to what extent Second Amendment rights can be used and to know where they stand 3) To bring attention to the fact that the Constitution is being violated in multiple ways. It’s one thing to debate online; it’s quite another to speak to the public or the media while carrying a weapon.

And it's still another thing to feel that your point can only be made with ARs and similar weapons.

I gather with other armed citizens all the time for sporting competitions like USPSA, etc.

If this group is trying to make a point then why not be a little more clear as to the full intent. Why make me read between the lines if your point it to demonstrate that what you are hinting at isn't illegal.

 

[CoffeeMate]

If this group is trying to make a point then why not be a little more clear as to the full intent. Why make me read between the lines if your point it to demonstrate that what you are hinting at isn't illegal.

Is the Second Amendment not part of the Constitution?
Is "...shall not be infringed..." not at the heart of the Second Amendment?

If nothing else they've demonstrated that in order to exercise the First Amendment, specifically to assemble peacably and in public, one must voluntarily agree to infringements on the Second Amendment. This is made evident by the infringement represented by those yellow tie wraps.

Further, this infringement is not only in violation of the Bill of Rights, but it is also in violation of Georgia State Law (OCGA 16-11-173).

 

[CoffeeMate]

Were participants also required to allow infringements on their Fourth or Sixth Amendment rights in order to exercise their First?






(Speaking of which, doesn't the same question apply to the church carry prohibition? In order to exercise First Amendment rights, one must suspend one's Second Amendment rights -- how is that okay?)

 

[CoffeeMate]

I thought rights were constructive and concurrent, not "...you can exercise them, but only one at a time, so pick one..."?









"...you can have due process or you can remain silent, but you can't have both at the same time... so either start talking or face rendition..."

 

[drtybykr]

Our very own banned "barely illegal". I am surprised he didn't throw acid in anyone's face :screwy:

 

[jlcnuke]

What's with all the yellow tie-wraps on those weapons? :screwy:

The "rules" for their "rally" included that all rifles etc be unloaded with chamber flags or similar inserted... I checked out their "blog" site and found that last night...

How is that legal under State pre-emption?

It wasn't required by the state or town, it was the groups rules for their rally, though I hesitate to use that term since I'm not sure what they were rallying against even after reading all the comments on the article (other than some unspecified offense against the Constitution).

 

[CoffeeMate]

What's with all the yellow tie-wraps on those weapons? :screwy:

The "rules" for their "rally" included that all rifles etc be unloaded with chamber flags or similar inserted... I checked out their "blog" site and found that last night...

How is that legal under State pre-emption?

It wasn't required by the state or town, it was the groups rules for their rally, though I hesitate to use that term since I'm not sure what they were rallying against even after reading all the comments on the article (other than some unspecified offense against the Constitution).

Ah, understood.

I hope they're not trying to set a precedent or trend with those yellow tie wraps.

 

[EJR914]

though I hesitate to use that term since I'm not sure what they were rallying against even after reading all the comments on the article (other than some unspecified offense against the Constitution).

Its fairly simple. They feel as if the Constitution is not being followed by our government and they are dissatisfied with this.

Watch the video: http://www.11alive.com/video/default.as ... 0819269001

You'll see one thing that Daniel states is that the licensing, a tax for a constitutional right, is unconstitutional on its face. That's one of the problems that he mentions.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Seemed to be a very favorable news story. I do not think it showed them in a bad light whatsoever.

 

[jlcnuke]

though I hesitate to use that term since I'm not sure what they were rallying against even after reading all the comments on the article (other than some unspecified offense against the Constitution).

Its fairly simple. They feel as if the Constitution is not being followed by our government and they are dissatisfied with this.

Watch the video: http://www.11alive.com/video/default.as ... 0819269001

You'll see one thing that Daniel states is that the licensing, a tax for a constitutional right, is unconstitutional on its face. That's one of the problems that he mentions.

Their "rally" signs just said "restore the Constitution" and the interaction they had with the public was handing out pocket versions of the Constitution. That doesn't tell the people what things they disagree with, how to go about changing those things or what they're doing to make a change. A couple of the guys state things they think are violations of the Constitution but don't explain their views when given the opportunity. Those who disagree aren't going to be convinced by that. Those who agree don't see what the group is doing to change anything and therefore are likely to care about the group. Those who are indifferent were given no compelling reason to care.

The couple minutes of news coverage showed people with guns, gun stores and close ups of guns for the majority of the time. The few seconds they spent talking in that video attempting to explain what they were doing they made no clear argument supporting their position. They seem to be of the "the Constitution is black and white and subject to no interpretation" crowd. A position that is obviously wrong since there are multiple views on issues regarding what is or isn't Constitutional and that could not happen if the answer was always obvious. Random people off the street could make decisions to overturn laws if that was the case instead of needing an entire judiciary branch and SCOTUS to decide those answers.

I'm a fan of the Constitution. I believe the government has trampled it in many ways and I can't find a compelling reason to support this group based on their "rally", their website or their interview with the news. Maybe they'll figure out how to be more effective by the time they hit up Atlanta.

 

[Redbull72]

If this group is trying to make a point then why not be a little more clear as to the full intent. Why make me read between the lines if your point it to demonstrate that what you are hinting at isn't illegal.

Is the Second Amendment not part of the Constitution?
Is "...shall not be infringed..." not at the heart of the Second Amendment?

If nothing else they've demonstrated that in order to exercise the First Amendment, specifically to assemble peacably and in public, one must voluntarily agree to infringements on the Second Amendment. This is made evident by the infringement represented by those yellow tie wraps.

Further, this infringement is not only in violation of the Bill of Rights, but it is also in violation of Georgia State Law (OCGA 16-11-173).

I'm not saying you don't have the right to carry rifles, or to demonstrate that right, I'm saying that you catch more flies with honey. Like bringing the right tool for the job. You can drive a screw with a hammer but it does a lot of damage. In polling some of my non gun toting friends they felt (as I do) that they would be less inclined to approach or be approached by a person carrying an AR style rifle than a side arm. Call it conditioning driven by media hype if you want and saying "it's my right" doesn't make it the best way to communicate with those whom you might want to "recondition".
And if the intent is to educate, they might want to think about presentation of the material.

I also found it hard to take the words in the quote at face value. Seemed to me that "the people" tend to get more nervous around language that has the potential to be something else rather than a plain old lie. They know it's a lie, they just prefer to here it as an official lie. I think the first answer to why in the first statement draws another why question by many. "To practice gathering together while armed" begs the question by most who don't carry as to "why would I need to practice that?". And if the answer is "because it's your right", most will just look at you in a patronizing way and leave the area, because it's their right not to listen or learn.

You probably have a better chance if you dressed the protesters in Revolutionary War uniforms and gave them muskets. People will buy the Old Patriot over the New Patriot all day long.

 

[TippinTaco]

Seemed to be a very favorable news story. I do not think it showed them in a bad light whatsoever.

I agree with this. Their choices in weapons shouldnt take away from their rally or what they're trying to say to the general public. People that have these rallies will possibly help others see more clearly when it comes to whats happening in this country. That the people we vote for have and will be the same people that will and has voted on measures that would and could infringe on our rights as americans. The sheep have always been comfortable following the rules that to government sets for them without any argument as to how it affects them.