There is a theory going around called GMI -Global Mass Insanity.

Good theory, eh?

Lots of gun violence then. More then, than now, in fact.

Too bad he didn't get ahead of them in the south and take them out before they started shooting. Eh?

Everyone back then had open carry. That's part of how the civil war started. Looks like GMI is leading us that way again.

It was just an observation. Yes, open carry is as crazy as hell and is being pushed by the stupid fuckers who want to not only halt societal progress but actually go backwards.

Gawd forbid we take away that right!

Texas: Love it or leave it!

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

We seem to have an ever increasing conflict between rights.

There is NO comeback to that.

"Texas: Love it or leave it!"

And there's the distraught bumper-sticker masquerading as wit we've come to expect. Plumbing the shallow depths of t-shirt wisdom and fortune-cookie acumen makes a cowboy thirsty, I'd reckon.

The guy testing his "Second Amendment Rights" to destruction is the first one the police are going to consider it necessary to hold a weapon on, which will make him the one most likely to be shot.

Idiots with guns create dangerous situations. Adding more idiots with guns only makes them more dangerous.

I thought more guns made us more safe.

Guess someone was wrong about that idea.

I mean, really, since this country is pretty much the most armed population out there, we should be the very safest country, yes? What? We're not??? Huh. Can't begin to imagine why.

And yet, the reason so many people were carrying was because those people were part of a protest expressing the view that the police had lost the confidence of the people to be the sole keepers of lethal force.

open carry shouldn't be a "thing." The smartest thing to do when you're out shopping and run into one of these "he-men" is to leave the store. Make sure to tell the manager at a later time why you did.

think they can tell a good guy with a gun vs a bad guy with a gun...but they're usually basing this decision on skin color.

The whole premise behind the support for the legal carry crowd was that these good guys with rifles would stand and shoot the bad guys with rifles.

What went wrong?

they were there.

What's the point of the "good guy" carrying if they aren't shooting at the "bad guy" who is shooting and killing people?

OK, I understand that. Does it apply to the marcher with the AR15 slung over his shouder the same way it does to someone with a hand gun strapped on openly? concealed? And I ask this in the context of the exact situation which existed here, ie. the active shooter picking off as many officers as he could with his rifle.

The carriers in Dallas did the right thing by leaving the scene as fast as possible.

Taking as a given that everyone should have the right to "bear arms" for self protection, should that right extend to the marcher slinging an AR15 over his shoulder and/or strapping on a hand gun in plain view and/or concealed and participating in a public event where controversy was inherent and tensions running high?

That said, it is a right- a mostly counterproductive one, IMO- but still a right.

my question is whether said right extends to AR15 slung over shoulder in these circumstances. Do you have an opinion on that question?

Many Constitutional rights never have been, and never will be, all or nothing propositions and that applies to the First Amendment in several regards. Why should it be different with the Second Amendment?

if one of those armed civilians had opened fire, in an effort to "catch" the bad guy...how many more people would have died?