Recent content by rcam

The reason there has been pretty much zero progress regarding gun control is due to the Right. If you think these events are unavoidable and T&P is really the best thing for it... then I guess both sides are equally blameless. If you think things like this can be prevented by changes, up to...

So are you saying, politically, both sides support gun control equally? Not from where I'm standing. Actions speak louder than words. 

Technically, the 2nd Amendment really isn't even enforced/applied as written. Bearing arms isn't even the first thing mentioned. Maybe this Supreme Court will overrule the past precedence that the only thing that matters in the 2nd Amendment is the last 1/2 of it.

Honestly, I have no idea. If the crowds are large, I would bet there are some weapons. But, again, 2nd Amendment allows you to be armed (at least how it has been interpreted).

There are crazies everywhere? Even celebrities use bodyguards. Hell, I'm not a fan of schools needing autolocking doors, bulletproof glass, and active shooter drills but, crazies, they're rare... but they do exist.

No, in this case, only the legal definition is correct. That is pretty much the point. I'm not playing word games.  I agree that protesting (depending on the method/crowd) in front of someone's house could be perceived as threatening. Though, as long as the protesters aren't actually...

No, it just means you don't understand. That is fine. Just know, the reason the police aren't rounding people up, is because it is legal. 

Influence is not "trying to change someone's mind." Think about it, if that was the case, it would illegal to protest in front of the SC itself (it isn't it happens all the time). Also, it would be illegal to have a sign like "Justice for XXX" in front of any federal court (it isn't, happens all...

I know it is all from the legal code but the word "influence" in that law does not mean what you think it means. I don't know how much more plainly I can put that. What you think that law says is not what it legally means. 

So, if I go searching for discussion on this board when Trump said something to the effect (and I paraphrase) those 2nd Amendment people will take care of Hillary Clinton in response to her "attacking the 2nd Amendment". What is the over under of the number of people on this thread so up in arms...

Peaceful protest is not illegal. Stop. Your definition of influencing IS NOT THE SAME as the legal definition.

You can also march around with a sign in your own living room. The point of protest is to make your voices heard and to make those who you are protesting for/against take notice. Protesting isn't supposed to make everyone feel comfortable - if it was, it wouldn't be a very good vehicle for change.

Exercising your 1st Amendment right is not banana republic stuff. 

Sigh... your definition of influencing is not the legal definition. Posted this before. It is not illegal to peacefully protest outside a SC Justice's home.

Heh... be careful soon you'll get @rockaction @PhillipPhoto  and @ekbeats telling you the whole protesting is illegal (it isn't) and repeatedly call you out on it and say you are posting in bad faith. I went and looked in old threads for their condemnation of armed protestors around state...