Quote Originally Posted by reaper239 View Post
why not? they aren't hurting anybody? i understand that in europe that's ilegal (i don't mean that all of europe is the same, but i'm pretty sure that's not allowed anywhere) but why should it be?who's rights are they violating? their clearly there for the sole purpose of making a visible protest, who is actually afraid here? i doubt if they were going to cause any harm they would be standing there taking pictures and posing for the camera.

regarding fox news: fox news is the most watched news program in the united states http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/201...4-2013/169564/. the reason is that, while fox news does lean slightly right, the other networks are so far left, they don't even try to hide it anymore. the other "news" agencies cover up stories, misrepresent stories, report out right lies, and the people are tired of it.
To be honest? I don't feel safe being around someone with an assault rifle slung around their neck if they aren't in a uniform. I have no idea who the guy is. Why would I trust him enough to be comfortable with that? I have to agree with the principle of random citizens being barred from bringing firearms to any type of legislative building. Who knows what asshole is going to walk into a place and start shooting? Whose rights are they violating? Mine. It's violating my right to freedom, because as long as someone is standing in front of me with a gun, I'm not free. I'm restricted to what they allow me.

I cannot abide someone standing behind an misinterpreted clause on a bit of paper no longer applies to the modern world. It's misguided, misinformed, and antiquated. The world has evolved beyond that, and the laws need to catch up. This is not to say that I'm supportive of gun control laws one way or the other. It doesn't mean that I don't believe an individual has a right to protect his/herself. It means I'm against any citizen, anywhere having the ability to walk into a place carrying an assault rifle, pistol or musket where the officials that I have elected are holding court.

It means I'm against anyone having the ability to carry a weapon in public. Period. I agree that citizens should have the right to bear arms, but the purpose is to maintain a militia to keep their governing body in check, not to go to the grocery store with a 9mm in the small of their back because they have a concealed carry license. Those people represent as much of a danger to me as the drug dealer on the corner with his 9mm.

I think it's a blatant misreading of an outmoded "law" which was drafted in a very different world, and it's convoluted and distorted to no end, and for no real benefit to the citizens as a whole.