Results 1 to 10 of 21
-
September 2nd, 2009, 05:38 PM #1
Firearms in civilian hands have no place at G-20
http://community.post-gazette.com/bl...e-at-g-20.aspx
EDITORIAL - Guns everywhere: Firearms in civilian hands have no place at G-20
When Pittsburgh hosts world leaders coming to the G-20 summit on Sept. 24 and 25, its greatest duty also will be the most basic -- security. It will be an awesome responsibility.
The Constitution must be respected in the process. It contains such rights of the people as to peaceably assemble and to keep and bear arms. But nothing in that great document suggests that one right is supreme over others. In the famous example, the First Amendment guarantees free speech but that does not permit someone to incite chaos by shouting fire needlessly in a crowded theater.
The question of competing rights now arises as G-20 legislation moves through Pittsburgh City Council. It would allow police to cite people for wearing a mask or carrying a variety of items such as rotten eggs if police perceive an intent to defy the law. The proposal also lists 37 types of guns that could be actionable. That part of the bill has upset gun-rights supporters.
We would be the first to concede that the gun provisions are legally dubious, given that in this case -- regrettably -- state law would seem to preempt anything Pittsburgh might enact. Empowering the police to be mind readers of intent is also troublesome. City Council should tread warily when these proposals are discussed in chambers tomorrow and a sunset provision would be reasonable.
But please spare us those who would make an unreasonable, absolutist defense of the Second Amendment and argue that people have a right to carry weapons anywhere near a meeting like the G-20. This summer, fanatical gun owners have insisted on their right to carry firearms to volatile town meetings or in the vicinity of the president. That is complete lunacy. It is the equivalent of shouting fire in a theater or playing with matches in a fireworks factory.
If any Joe can carry firearms near the G-20 summit, it would vastly complicate the job of law enforcement. If rotten eggs are banned but deadly firearms aren't, what a sad commentary on gun-obsessed America that will make."Having a gun and thinking you are armed is like having a piano and thinking you are a musician" Col. Jeff Cooper (U.S.M.C. Ret.)
Speed is fine, Accuracy is final
-
September 2nd, 2009, 06:05 PM #2
Re: Firearms in civilian hands have no place at G-20
Life sure would be simpler if it wasn't for that damned Constitution!
-
September 2nd, 2009, 09:14 PM #3
Re: Firearms in civilian hands have no place at G-20
But please spare us those who would make an unreasonable, absolutist defense of the Second Amendment and argue that people have a right to carry weapons anywhere near a meeting like the G-20. This summer, fanatical gun owners have insisted on their right to carry firearms to volatile town meetings or in the vicinity of the president. That is complete lunacy. It is the equivalent of shouting fire in a theater or playing with matches in a fireworks factory.
If any Joe can carry firearms near the G-20 summit, it would vastly complicate the job of law enforcement. If rotten eggs are banned but deadly firearms aren't, what a sad commentary on gun-obsessed America that will make.
(all aimed at the author, of course)
-
September 2nd, 2009, 10:31 PM #4
Re: Firearms in civilian hands have no place at G-20
IIRC, the defined protest 'zones' are no where near where the G20 meetings will be held. Kinda makes their whole argument moot.
-
September 2nd, 2009, 11:00 PM #5
Re: Firearms in civilian hands have no place at G-20
I'd like to figure out who first coined the "It's like shouting fire in a theater" phrase, find them, and kick them right in the junk.
If they are dead Ill find em, dig em up, then kick them right in the junk just for principle.
-
September 2nd, 2009, 11:45 PM #6
Re: Firearms in civilian hands have no place at G-20
F#@$ The G-20. Who are they? I say we all caary till our hearts content. We have the right, they have the subjects. Thats how it will be untill Patriots are gone and they have the power.
-
September 3rd, 2009, 12:02 AM #7
-
September 3rd, 2009, 12:24 AM #8
-
September 3rd, 2009, 12:38 AM #9
Re: Firearms in civilian hands have no place at G-20
I want to know what is unreasonable about being an absolutist. Is the author suggesting partial amendment adherence? Hmmmmm....I wonder how that would fit into his freedom of the press and speech?
-
September 3rd, 2009, 12:51 AM #10
Re: Firearms in civilian hands have no place at G-20
If they don't like firearms.... STAY OUT OF Pa.!!!!
_________________________________________
danbus wrote: ...Like I said before, I open carry because you don't, I fight for all my rights because
you won't, I will not sit with my thumb up my bum and complain, because you will.
Similar Threads
-
Time for civilian oversight of LE
By ehidle in forum GeneralReplies: 26Last Post: June 18th, 2009, 12:34 AM -
So what number constitute's " in common use " regarding civilian firearms
By son of the revolution in forum GeneralReplies: 4Last Post: April 28th, 2009, 08:41 PM -
M1 CARBINE civilian model
By richycat in forum GeneralReplies: 0Last Post: February 20th, 2009, 03:27 PM -
Must civilian read someone their miranda rights if they place them under arrest?
By gunperson003 in forum GeneralReplies: 16Last Post: June 22nd, 2008, 06:18 PM -
The AK as a CDR (Civilian Defense Rifle)
By JustinM in forum GeneralReplies: 43Last Post: February 22nd, 2007, 06:04 PM
Bookmarks