Tone Deaf Pro-Gun Rally Coming to Columbus Just in Time for MLK Day!

Look up the difference between civil rights and political rights and come back.

Well, my friend. Looks like the moron is on the other foot because photographic evidence proves that they did.

I’m not familiar with an anti-Constitution rally on Monday. Can you send a link?

I’ve not only read it, but even capitalize it when I write about it.

I checked on the Intertube and the article is 9th grade level. So there.

“Timing”? Big events like this open policy windows. People want the problem of these shootings addressed. The NRA even suggested a policy change. *Everybody* does this; look at all the security state changes that came after 9/11. Or hell, look at our policy of exploiting unrest around the world to force capitalistic change on various countries (Poland, Chile, for example).

No, they’re trying to get your identity so that they can step up personal attacks – site going by the initials F.R.

I was writing to the author idiot. The universe is not Ericocentric

That’s a correct statement, but irrelevant to the issue at hand. You claimed that they were violent and threatening people by peacefully assembling while holding inanimate objects.

We appear to start from two very different viewpoints on the nature of humanity. It appears from your quote that you choose to believe humanity’s nature is basically good, and simply discussing issues will bring people to a common understanding and mutually beneficial arrangement in regard to profit, property, and justice. While discussion should be a first choice, my belief is that humanity is basically rooted in selfishness and self-interest and there are some people with whom you cannot reason. Those cases need to be deterred from destroying others’ wealth and family, and the ultimate deterrent is a threat against life. I choose to keep a weapon as a last resort against evil people, and choose the type of weapon because I should have the advantage against evil men. Not the other way around. This conclusion causes me to bristle against attempts to remove my defensive means and advantage against evil, because I believe my choice a logical one. Removing my defense because we are starting from different worldviews is immoral.

I like this. Sounds reasonable enough to me. I also disagree with your underlying view of humanity. That said, your choice to defend yourself in the way you do under certain limits (well regulated and such) is fine with me.

Here’s the rub though. This same attitude of “to each his own” is seldom taken on the right when it comes to other rights that seem obvious to those with an opposing worldview. Gay marriage. Abortion. Et cetera…

If I concede to you your point, is same returned to me? We, of course, also have to consider the general welfare as this was an underlying basis for the US Constitution to begin with.

I do like the way you’ve put this and I’m persuaded by it.

MLK was a proud Republican gun owner.

Learn English first and then I’ll explain it fully to you. You obviously didn’t do what I asked Wrench Moran to do.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, status as a member of the uniformed services, sexual orientation, or gender identity;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement.

Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

Here ya go. Now…. since MLK advocated for BOTH for African Americans, you can get off of your high horse.

No, in a comment to another person, you clearly said that they were being violent by carrying firearms.

” I still contend they could protest and exercise freedom of speech and assembly without firearms.”

Yes, they could, but it wouldn’t show that groups of people can go about in public with firearms without anyone being hurt. Also, notice how the police didn’t try to intimidate anyone at these rallies? Any time unarmed people are protesting, they usually get harassed and threatened (sometimes assaulted even) by the police – yet the police left these people alone.

Agreement from logical progression on one subject does not assure agreement on other subjects! Perhaps we’ll meet again…