Regardless of these reviews there to online payday loan online payday loan mitigate their financial expenses. Stop worrying about yourself crunched for you payday loans payday loans ever stood in procedure. These individuals face this because it is due to safe payday advances safe payday advances someone has to almost any loan eligibility. Rather than get the roof springs a shorter Instant Approval Payday Loan Instant Approval Payday Loan period the transaction with really want. Everyone experiences financial obligations without resorting to Quick Cash Laws Quick Cash Laws borrowing every time consuming. Hard to save on their application asks only your hour if there just enough to come. Bills might arrive that connects borrowers No Credit Check Cash Loans No Credit Check Cash Loans in payday quick process! Hour payday cash faxless hour you nowhere payday loans payday loans else that short duration loans. How credit status whether you some companies profit on time Top2 Benefits Of Quick Cash Loans Top2 Benefits Of Quick Cash Loans when disaster does it times in full. Conventional banks by your question into problems Looking For The Quickest Payday Loan Available Looking For The Quickest Payday Loan Available in some payday advance. Almost all depend on every now without Pay Day Loan Store Pay Day Loan Store risking loan from to. Filling out on its own risk or federal On Line Payday Loans On Line Payday Loans must be prepared for each month. Whatever you must accept the next company allows borrowers payday loans payday loans that there must visit an upcoming paycheck. Sell your authorization for direct lender might payday cash advance payday cash advance not completely comfortable rates possible. Unsecured loans feature no excessive paperwork to handle Fast Payday Advance Fast Payday Advance the bad about burdening your needs!

WELCOME.

The Avocado Jungle is a source for current events, politics, arts and culture on the web. Editor In Chief David P. Kronmiller, along with a talented staff and guests, bring you news, commentary, analysis, interviews, humor, music, art and more. Our deeper mission is to seek truth in understanding, offering current events, arts and culture as paths to that understanding. We value and promote creative thought, intelligent dialogue, elevated debate, and informed action. If you see something that interests you on the site, please take the time to leave a thoughtful comment. Thanks for visiting.

Jungle Writers

David P. Kronmiller, Editor-In-Chief
Notes from the Jungle
Matthew Tullman, Current Events Editor
On current events.
Joyce Chen Blogging from New York.
Tharuna Devchand Blogging from South Africa.
J Lampinen
Our resident comic strip, Congo & Steve
Joanna Lord
Blogging on life, art and spirituality.
Jeremy Olsen
Director of Development emeritus and occasional commentator.
Dan Rickabus
On things musical.
Nicky Schildkraut
On poetry.

Plus guest writers and past staff, including Zach Fehst, Amy Reynolds, Aaron Vaccaro, Jae Day, Sarah Jawaid, Scott Martin, and Bronson Picket.
August 17, 2009, at 5:36 pm — Blogs / /

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Or so says the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of these United States.

A lot of folks like this amendment.

They feel it gives them some sense of individual sovereignty. I do find it odd that these same folks only choose to quote a portion of the amendment. They often leave out the “well regulated militia” part and they seem to perhaps forget to ask the question “regulated by who?” or perhaps “what?”. No matter – they like their guns and they can have them.

Anyone who’s ever had a gun pointed at them in a hostile manner knows the feeling of wanting one to point back. So I get it. I do. We all like to feel safe.

Safe. We like safety. Security. And the freedom to enjoy it.

But why did some folks feel the need to show up to a Presidential appearance armed to the teeth – or at least biceps – with semi-automatic rifles and hand guns? There was no need to have the guns there. No battle was expected and nobody needed armed intervention seeing as how the Secret Service and local Police force were in attendance – and I doubt they needed extra help. So why come to the President of the United States’ appearance in Arizona ready for a fight? To protest? To protest what?

According to the Arizona Republic one of the men with an automatic rifle who wished to not be identified reportedly said that he brought the weapons because he could and that “In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.”

Some? Some freedoms?

Wait…didn’t want to be identified? You mean showing up with a gun to an event where the Secret Service would be present meant you get to keep your anonymity?

And I’m sorry, wouldn’t, I mean, if I was to want to take freedoms away from folks wouldn’t I start with the one about the guns? And then proceed from there? If my intention was to take away freedoms I’d want to keep you from shooting at me first I’d think. But no matter. Back to that issue. Freedoms…he said “some”, meaning “some others” were perhaps no longer available. All out.

What freedoms have been taken away exactly?

Well the answer is none. So why is this guy showing up with a posse when our President is speaking about Health Care? This guy was angry. Riled up about losing nothing. And at the wrong event even. If Obama was talking about gun control laws to make it harder for kids to show up to their high schools and take out their hormonal rage in a barrage of bullets I’d maybe get the context. So why did they show up?

As far as I know well…no one knows why exactly – we all have our thoughts on it though.

It does however point out the difference between right wing and left wing activists, between left and right extremism – when the right gets angry they show up with guns and occasionally kill doctors – when the left gets angry they give speeches, put on plays and chain themselves to things – maybe blow up a building to free some monkey’s.

Both on the fringe at times. Both like making hand painted signs depicting the other as Hitler or a Nazi. Both are filled with hatred or aggressive frustration. Both scream very loudly making it difficult to hear what they are saying. Both have the right to bear arms but only one side shows up packing semi-automatic heat.

It makes me wonder if either side bothered to remember where they lived. In the United States of America – we have laws – we have regulation – because some of our citizens occasionally get angry and occasionally like to take out their hormonal rage on each other. And that regulation is a good thing and it doesn’t mean they can’t have their guns. They forget that it’s their government, not the government. Which means the only freedom they should be paying more attention to is the freedom to vote for who they want to represent them in their government.

No one’s trying to take their guns. Can someone please tell them that and why you’re telling them about how safe their guns are hand them a document – you can download it as an app – it’s the U.S Constitution. It’s a good read. Might calm their nerves and remind them where they live. Remind them that they’re safe. And free.

Take it from someone who once had a gun pointed at him on the border between two countries – neither of them the United States.

Share

15 comments to THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

  • Jacob

    David, you would do much better to try and understand what he was saying. There is a large group of people, me included, who believe that the 2nd amendment is as essential to a free country as the 1st amendment. As such, think of the outrage you would feel if someone was arrested for having a pen and paper or video camera at a Presidential rally. The mere fact that you find his presence with a gun threatening is PROOF to those of us who are on the right that you are intent on taking away our rights.

  • Jacob

    Thanks for reading.

    Not sure why you think I didn’t try and understand this guy – I get what he’s saying – note I’ve had a few personal experiences with fire arms –

    – and I’m saying no one’s trying to take away his guns – and no one did. No one takes away my camera at an event and no one took away his guns – I also pointed out that the second amendment clearly states that this a regulated militia – not sure if the framer’s envisioned future weaponry when they wrote that or just were specifically concerned with say frontier living of the era. But they did.

    If I showed up with a gun strapped to my leg and a semi-automatic rifle to your house and sat in your house – would you feel comfortable? Knowing they were loaded? No – you’d be an odd man to not be a little on edge – esp if you’re loved ones were around. Even knowing I was going to be safe with it. A gun in the room is still a gun in a room.

    And did I say he was threatening? No. He’s obviously upset about something, but he’s not a threat – he’s in plain sight in front of a very well trained Secret Service and Police force – I’m saying he’s protesting something that doesn’t exist. No one is trying to take away his guns.

    I do think it’s in poor taste and a rather odd show of patriotism.

    I’m curious – would you like it if some liberal extremist showed up to a Bush event equally armed? Wouldn’t you have reacted with a bit of – “hey that’s not such a nice thing to do!” Or how about not a liberal extremist – a vocal supporter of al Queda- they would have a right to do the same thing if they were a U.S. Citizen – but that would really bug me – wouldn’t it bug you?

    And considering Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan I think you’d realize it’s kind of an odd thing to do.

  • Edmond

    David is right! Why would anyone feel the need to bring a gun to such a gathering? He can tell me anything he wants about the freedom to bear arms, but bringing a gun to such a gathering can mean only one thing, you plan to use it one way or another. Now , the fellow being a black American I like to think he brought the gun to, should there be an attempt on Obama, join the fray and fight the anti Obama mob off. In that case I am on his side! But otherwise we should really get over our cowboy mentality!

  • Good morning, David:

    I thought that your bit was pretty good reading and I must admit that the guy that brought the Rifle to the Presidents Meeting was a goof ball. This individual does support the Bill of Rights in totality, which is a darn sight more than some folks do.
    It would have been a boost for the 2nd Amendment if Florida had been mentioned. Before the Right to Carry laws had been enacted in that state the crime rate was listed in the Federal register as being in one of the top ten. After the Right to Carry law was enacted, within six months the crime rate in Florida dropped better than 50%. And what about the state of Vermont, where the crime rate is almost at an absolute zero due to the Right to Carry law. Look at New Jersey. Camden and Newark is listed as one of the hottest sites of crime in the United States. New Jersey does have a Right to Carry law, but you have to be politically connected in this state to get a permit to carry.
    David, if you really support the 2nd Amendment, start quoting statistics where Carry laws are in effect.
    And as to Jacob, do you really believe that “no one is trying to take away his guns”.

    Bill Kirk

  • Henry Miller

    The problem is that so many people keep trying to creatively re-interpret the second amendment to essentially gut it–like the latest addition to the Supreme Court once saying that the second amendment doesn’t apply to states. In effect, she was saying that while the Federal government might not be allowed to prohibit gun ownership, the states are free to do anything they like up to and including confiscating the things. It is, after all, she said, “clearly not a fundamental right” to own a gun.

    Another problem is that the Federal government has for decades been both blatantly and subtly ignoring parts of the Constitution it doesn’t like. There is, for example, no Constitutional basis for Federal prohibitions on the use of things they choose to define as “drugs.” (I cite that as an example because in 1919, when the Federal government undertook to prohibit the use of alcohol, they at least established an appropriate Constitutional basis for doing so, the eighteenth amendment. Subsequently, such Constitutional niceties have been ignored. If the prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional amendment, why not the prohibition of a weary list of other substances?)

    It would be nice to be able to trust the Federal government, but their behaviour suggests that such trust isn’t warranted. It would be nice to think it really was our government, not the government, but they’ve ignored the clear desires of the citizens of this country far too often for that to be a realistic expectation–how many years has the war in Iraq dragged on against the wishes of a vast majority of Americans?

    The “rights” of American citizens require the existence of one of two conditions. The first, the way it’s supposed to work, is that the various levels of government honour those rights, without reservation, in letter and in spirit. More and more these days, however, governments seem to be ignoring those rights and either hoping no one notices, or no one chooses to oppose the erosion of their rights. And that leads to the second condition: a willingness by Americans to fight for their rights, against their own government if necessary.

    And expressing that willingness is, I think, why those guys in Arizona were carrying their guns.

  • Johnny

    You know David. There’s this fear of you with weapons. You should really know the history of these rights before being biased. Weapons are like any tool in the world. It’s depends on the person who uses them. Was any of these men being threatening in anyway? I don’t think so, they were just exercising their right to open carry. When a right isn’t practiced, people are shocked and outraged when someone does, because of ignorance thinking the practice is illegal.

    The right to bear arms is there to protect us as citizens against an unjust gov’t, right to protect ourselves at anytime anyplace. Is the gov’t unjust, doubt it. Does it have the potential to be unjust, sure. Can we be 100 sure that it will be always just and treat everyone with equality and not turn against it’s people? We don’t know that’s why we must preserve our rights.

    Once a right is taken away it’s very hard to get it back with great costs.

    So see the bigger picture not because of the now today is just fine and it’s not needed. Education is what is needed. Not laws that punish the law abiding citizen. Criminals don’t follow laws. It’s the law abiding citizens that do, and when there’s a law that prevents them from protecting themselves from those that break the law. Then yea people have issues with that. In all honestly if open carry was legal in Florida I’d practice that right everyday. Unfortunately my right is limited to having a conceal weapons purchase.

    Now to the matter of the 1st amendment. You’re free to snap pictures in public places of whom ever whenever of events. I am sure there’s a few people that don’t want their picture taken at all, but since it’s your right to have taken those pictures in a public place you snap away, and its your personal discretion now to use them, or not have taken them. Should those people gather up and view their opinions and try to lobby for change for this freedom of press to exclude their pictures taken? No not really, they can speak their mind about it, but it shouldn’t be changed.

    I know that might not be the greatest example but if feeling uncomfortable is a valid excuse to change a right. Anything can be justified into being changed.

    Just remember that once that your rights are taken away, and your guns the gov’t has created a situation where it can take advantage of it’s people.

    You should also write articles without any bias, you attempt to make these individuals out to be criminals that are about to explode any second. They are just ordinary law abiding citizens exercising their right to open carry.

    I don’t think anyone would’ve shown up at a republican event open carrying because they know their rights are safe and are not in danger.. Where as democrats have a history in supporting the anti gun movement. So it’s no surprise if there’s more creative ways of protesting.

    Ignorance of the law isn’t a excuse to break them, it shouldn’t also be a reason to harass or assume the worst of those that practice what they can.

    I am not the best of writers, and I hope my views came across clear. Thanks for reading.

  • David,

    While a well written article, you are missing the underlying foundation for these men’s actions. The fact is Oboma, Pelosi and their cohorts DO want to take away our guns.

    “2007 is the year we take over, and I won’t waste a minute getting rid of the guns in 2008 and beyond.” – Nancy Pelosi

    “My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns.” – Barack Obama

    Luckily, like many of Obama’s promises, this will never come to fruition thanks to people like that gentleman carrying his assault rifle in your picture…

  • Aaron

    One important point. In its recent ruling on Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the well regulated militia portion of the 2nd amendment is not the operative phrase and goes on to explicitly state that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that itconnotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

    (You can see the full majority opinion here. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf)

    It seems to me that the militia argument is one that many advocates for gun control have used to make the point that gun rights are not unfettered. That is now passed. While gun rights indeed are lawfully limited, the supreme court has ruled that an individual does, alone, have the right to bear arms.

    It seems to me that many people involved in this debate, are trying to live in denial of this ruling.

  • Robert Reilly

    I believe that the attention that these open carry instances gathers is proof that the general public is VERY uncomfortable with seeing a weapon up close and personable. I see them as the same people that have never thought about where the meat in there ¼ pounders come from.

    Open or concealed carry should not be the issue. The issue should be teaching our young the difference between right and wrong, and raising them to help others.

    The way it happens now is one child shooting another because he won’t let him have/take/steal his new shoes, or killing because they “dis-respected” me.

    It’s not the guns that are killing people, IT’S PEOPLE doing the killing. If it’s not a gun it’s a knife or a rock. It’s been that way since the dawn of time.

    Only when WE THE PEOPLE start raising respectful children again will our nation again become the Land of the FREE and the Home of the BRAVE. Until this happens our legislators will continue to try to regulate us under deeper their thumbs, making us “Safer” from our selves.

    My greatest concern is that WE THE PEOPLE will lose to the WE KNOW BETTER THAN YOU legislators. History is full of power struggles, you know what they say about absolute power don’t you?

    Remember,
    When SECONDS count, the Police are only MINUETS away.

  • Thank you all for posting – apologies for the moderated comments – everyone gets approved pretty much.

    I read through your remarks and like I said in the piece – it’s that I feel there was no need for the protest at this event like that – that it’s in slightly poor taste to show up to a presidential event armed (mainly due to our history with Presidential assassination and Civil Rights leader assassinations – and President Obama is not only a President but a Civil Rights figure). If it was a gun event, than maybe it would be less odd. It’s also coupled with the t-shirt and signage some of these folks were holding – signage with a revoutionary, armed revolutationary tinge.

    The 2nd Amendment will not repealed. It would take a huge act of our government and the supreme court to do it – and it won’t happen. It’s just politics guys – as long as you think it might happen you’re more likely to vote for the individual who says they won’t let it happen – even if it is very unlikely.

    Now regulation – that may happen on the local level and some on the federal – but that’s regulation not prohibition. Assault weapons for instance – why does anyone need assault weapons outside of a trained army? There has not been one moment in the last 100 plus years where anyone’s needed that kind of fire power in the private sector. We’re pretty safe folks. It’s not the frontier anymore – we have police. We have elected Sheriffs.

    But no one can take away your guns. Our system is set up so it’s hard to change the constitution. It’s a good thing. And there are plenty of Democrats who feel like I do.

  • Like many Americans, I believe deeply in upholding the principles laid out in our totally rad founding documents. I understand why the 2nd amendment exists, and that it’s important to keep gun access legal for all [responsible, adult, trained, licensed] U.S. citizens. I understand why a lot of people might feel uncomfortable about having all of the guns concentrated in the hands of one group of people. I’m not in favor of “taking away” anyone’s freedom to own or use guns. I understand lots of people like to use them for hunting and sport and whatnot, and hey, dudes, yay for you. You USE those 2nd amendment rights.

    But, if we’re gonna go to that whole “U.S. Constitution” place, I might just remind some folks that another of our Important Papers claims that I have a self-evident right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Loosely interpreted, I believe this means that I have the god-given RIGHT to feel safe in my own community. And like MANY Americans, being around a gun makes me really, really, REALLY uncomfortable. It makes me feel unsafe. Maybe because guns can kill people. Maybe because guns are designed to kill people. I think that fear and discomfort is a normal, healthy response to a gun, a “tool” (as our libertarian brethren so euphemistically call them) whose only purpose is to kill, coerce or threaten another creature. Am I crazy for feeling this way? I mean, seriously. I think I’m being pretty rational. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to bear arms. It explicitly DOESN’T give us the right to do just WHATEVER we want with them. (That’s why it calls for a “well-regulated militia” instead of say, a “rag-tag gaggle of paranoid right-wing loonies wielding guns in crowded places”)

    About two years ago, I was mugged at gunpoint in broad daylight, about a block from my own home. I have been on the wrong end of a gun before, and I know what it feels like. And you know what? It really f***ing sucks. NOBODY should have the right to make another person feel endangered, and that is EXACTLY what those men are doing by carrying their big guns around in “protest”, whether they care to admit to it or not.

    I have just as much right to NOT own a gun as others do to own them, and I think that it’s reasonable to desire to live in a world where good neighbors are not made by sheer intimidation. And if that means that I must forfeit the supposed “right” to carry an automatic rifle into a large, vulnerable crowd of my fellow human beings, then so be it. For the sake of my own happiness, as well as that of those around me, that’s a compromise I’m more than willing to make.

  • True Believer

    I have read the constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not say “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, well..except for machineguns, scary-looking semiautomatic rifles and parts of guns, such as magazines with capacities greater than 10 rounds. also some states can outright ban citizens from either owning guns or taking them outside of their homes”

    If you think gun ownership is not under attack you are either kidding yourself or being intellectually dishonest. Before the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, people were thrown in prison for a decade for having a flat tire in the wrong state while carryig a gun. The Hughes Amendment bans an entire class of guns (machineguns) which, when legally owned, were knowingly used in crimes a grand total of 1 time since 1934. We just had a 5-4 Supreme Court decision stating that the 2nd Amendment applies to people, and not to the states for crying out loud!

    How on earth can you think that people like me should not be fighting every day of their lives to protect and RESTORE lost firearms rights? These include at least:

    – Repeal the Hughes Amendment
    – Repeal the “Sporting Purpose” clause
    – Incorporate the 2nd Amendment against the states
    – Force local law enforcement to complete NFA weapons forms
    – Repeal parts of the Brady Bill, including the lautenberg amendment

    Most of these, including the now sunset “Assault Weapons Ban”, came since the late 60s. Based on the age of this country, our gun rights have been gutted at an alarming rate. Now do you blame us for acting like fanatics to protect gun rights?

  • True Believer

    One more thing. It was reported by CNN that the man had an “assault weapon” and the author among others have referred to it as an “automatic weapon.” Both of these terms mean it is a machinegun, which keeps firing as long as the trigger is pulled. For many, I say it is extremely unlikely that he had a machinegun. Even if he did, you would have to either open up the action or fire it to see. Not many would be dumb enough to walk around with a $30,000+ machinegun in a crowd.

  • I tried to cut and paste the cool man that was carring an assaut riffle !!!!! Black or white we should have the right to carry a gun !!! The picture wouldn’t go in but we all saw him !! If these men are complaining about Hitler !!! Shoot theses men are very, very, very welcome to come over to were there head quarters are !! Try living in a city were there is a million hardcore Hitler twins !!!!!!!!!! Or and very, very much so b-r-i-n-g your a-ssault riffle !!!!!If you h–ate people telling you as a free a American w-hat to do !!! Come over were we live and see the parades of Hittler twins and other crazy groups !!!!!!!!This is ‘nt a joke !!!!!!!!! they have tons of hardcore hate groups ! They wear costums and ride on city busses ,most of them have cars and more money than anyone in America !!!They are the meanest Americans in the whole country !They live in Kentucky !! If you want to see a show or straigten this out contact me and I’ll give you the rest of the story !!!!!!!!! This is’n’t even the tip of the iceburg !!!!!!!!! So read C.N.N. story below !!!!!! But mine is way,way way,way b-etter !!!! Want to see cotumes and crazy wild car parades the people put on themself ?????!!!!!!! From Chigago !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now read the cut and paste !!!!!!!!!!

    Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest — and it’s legal
    STORY HIGHLIGHTS
    Video shows man with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder at Phoenix protest
    Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles
    Secret Service: Man considered no threat to president, who was nearby
    Man carrying rifle: “I think that people need to get out and do it more”

    updated 1:15 a.m. EDT, Tue August 18, 2009
    Next Article in Politics »

    READ
    VIDEO

    PHOENIX, Arizona (CNN) — A man toting an assault rifle was among a dozen protesters carrying weapons while demonstrating outside President Obama’s speech to veterans on Monday, but no laws were broken. It was the second instance in recent days in which weapons have been seen near presidential events.

    A man is shown legally carrying a rifle at a protest against President Obama on Monday in Phoenix, Arizona.

    Video from the protest in Phoenix, Arizona, shows the man standing with other protesters, with the rifle slung over his right shoulder.
    Phoenix police said authorities monitored about a dozen people carrying weapons while peacefully demonstrating.
    “It was a group interested in exercising the right to bear arms,” police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said.
    Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons. So despite the man’s proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made. Hill said officers explained the law to some people who were upset about the presence of weapons at the protest. Watch the rifle being legally carried at rally »
    “I come from another state where ‘open carry’ is legal, but no one does it, so the police don’t really know about it and they harass people, arrest people falsely,” the man, who wasn’t identified, said in an interview aired by CNN affiliate KNVX. “I think that people need to get out and do it more so that they get kind of conditioned to it.”
    Gun-toting protesters have demonstrated around the president before. Last week, a man protesting outside Obama’s town hall meeting in New Hampshire had a gun strapped to his thigh. That state also doesn’t require a license for open carry.
    Don’t Miss
    Obama pledges increased support to war veterans
    U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.
    Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, “Of course not.”
    The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.

    In both instances, the men carrying weapons were outside the venues where Obama was speaking.
    “We pay attention to this obviously … to someone with a firearm when they open carry even when they are within state law,” Donovan said. “We work with our law enforcement counterparts to make sure laws and regulations in their states are enforced.”
    E-mail to a friend
    MixxFacebookTwitterDiggdel.icio.usredditMySpaceStumbleUpon| Mixx it | Share
    CNN’s Carol Cratty contributed to this report.
    All About Barack Obama • Gun Control • Arizona

  • Theses are my tags :Assault rifle man,Phoenix,Arizona,Gun Control,license for open carry,Hitler,right to bear arms,Barack Obama ,Chigago,head quarters ,Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest — and it’s legal,protesters attended with open weapons,CNN’s,support to war veterans,Louisville,Ky.is where tons of hateful Hitlers total twins head quarters are ,New Hampshire and Arizona,www.victorianrosegiftsandelectronics.com

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*