So scanning the headlines on Politico I saw one that asked if protestors should be allowed to carry guns. Into the article itself it indicated that banning guns at protests could be problematical because some states and cities have free-wheeling laws that allow the toting of guns.
Well in my mind you can argue all day and night whether the Second Amendment gives everyone an unlimited right to tote guns anywhere and anytime. That amendment, only one sentence long, is perhaps at first glance plain and then at second glance ambiguous — and I won’t go into all of that now because I have previously and I don’t want to stray away from my point here, which is:
Seems to me the First Amendment is plain enough on the subject. It gives everyone the right to PEACEABLY assemble and protest.
Read it, if you will:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.]”
Ah, brevity, I did not realize it before but the First Amendment is only one sentence as well. But I do not see how you can call gun-toting protestors peaceful, even if they are not firing those guns, especially when those guns are out in the open like some were by fascist-like protestors in Charlottesville — I guess they would call themselves some kind of militia — and why did I go there? The Second Amendment speaks of a militia, and that opens a can of worms. But don’t try to tell me we have to suffer hooligans who call themselves militia. I only recognize our legitimate government.
It is clear that those who openly displayed their military-like hardware at Charlottesville did so for purposes of intimidation. And they not only intimidate what could be a likewise contingent of goons on the left who reportedly go under the unofficial name of Antifa and who reportedly show up to fight (I am murky on this), they intimidate all peace-loving people who prefer to live in a free society, free from armed goons, but who also want a right to peacfully protest, some or many of whom may have taken part in Charlottesville.
If protestors of any stripe are fearful that they might meet violence for their protest then they should contact local authorities — most or many communities require permits — and request police protection.
Showing up openly armed is a provocation on its face.
Now I realize that the murderer in Charlottesville used a car, but I was just reacting to the question about armed protestors — also I think reports said that guns were found in his car (not sure about that). He was an adherent of the alt-right.
And I should stop there but some say you need guns to protect yourself from the government, but that is talk of rebellion not protest, and I thought the question of rebellion was settled 152 years ago.
And I still support the Second Amendment. We’ve lived and managed to deal with it for a long time, some 226 years, and it makes us unique in the world as a free society I think. It’s just who we are I suppose.
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.