Apparently I stand corrected about the recent flap over the right to carry weapons not concealed at the aforementioned festival.
Sandman commented, "Is it wise to advertise that you are packing ( a firearm), no." The comments goes on to state "I don't think that the point wasn't to show an exposed gun so much as it was Royal Oak making the decision to not allow any guns which is against both state and federal laws."
If that's the case as was stated, then there seems to be a rights issue. But aren't we all adult enough to realize there was an error in judgement? That the right to bear arms is still alive and well?
Why pick a fight over the right to carry at a public gathering like this festival? I don't get it. Yes, we go back to having the right to carry. That seems to be understood and acknowledged. Lets drop it and move on.
I'm understanding that if the antis or whatever group is behind this, were to get their way, the feeling is that it would be just the beginning. That the right to carry would be further diminished down the line at some other function or venue.
I think in some of these arguments, more harm than good is done on behalf of rights. At least that's the perception by those that oppose guns in any form.
No comments:
Post a Comment