Gun rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen. The assault weapon (a military style weapon) was clearly displayed in a public protest. Why does this man's right to have a military style assault weapon trump the rights of citizens to voice their potentially opposing view point? Doesn’t this limit the free exchange of ideas and the national debate that should happen while determining what form our health care system should take? I guess I fundamentally don't understand how this can still be legal? I understand it made sense in the militia days of the constitution where protection was up to the individual, but how can this still be legal today? Does this send a message to other protestors that its ok to bring firearms if you "really" disagree with something?
Why is it legal to bring an assault rifle to an open health reform debate?
- Thread starter MusicMan
- Start date