I was told something not long ago that really has me thinking, and it's probibly true. But what I don't get, what I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around, is why it's true. I was told that bringing up the 2ed amendment, and the 4th, as in just about any case of an open carry stop, the 4th would come into play as well, probibly more so than the 2ed even, would make me seem crazy. Also, that instead, I should just only bring up the laws. My gosh, theres so many laws, to keep track of. Some to support the right to open carry, and others that kinda work against it. Not sure I'm up to that task. I'd be more inclined to ask what law I've broken, but then I've put stock in a law that might be unconstitutional, and I'd have to take the word of the cop relaying this info.
But as I think about this, I think of the reason, one of the reasons we open carry. To make it more accepted in our community, state, nation, ect. I think that maybe, we should fall back more on the bill of rights for the same reason. My gosh, If we can support the notion that those who place a great deal of importance in our rights, are crazy, to the point of being too ashamed of these freedoms to openly speak out in favor of them, well I don't know if theres any hope for humanity.
I was not around in the late 1700s early 1800s. Or maybe I was in another life and just don't remember it, hows that for crazy lol.. But I would imagine that our founders, and the people of the newly formed nation took pride in those rights outlined in the bill of rights, that they spoke often of them.
So if we open carry to make it more accepted, shouldn't we go to the strongest argument in favor of it for the same reason?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
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.
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Or is that just crazy talk?, your thoughts?
But as I think about this, I think of the reason, one of the reasons we open carry. To make it more accepted in our community, state, nation, ect. I think that maybe, we should fall back more on the bill of rights for the same reason. My gosh, If we can support the notion that those who place a great deal of importance in our rights, are crazy, to the point of being too ashamed of these freedoms to openly speak out in favor of them, well I don't know if theres any hope for humanity.
I was not around in the late 1700s early 1800s. Or maybe I was in another life and just don't remember it, hows that for crazy lol.. But I would imagine that our founders, and the people of the newly formed nation took pride in those rights outlined in the bill of rights, that they spoke often of them.
So if we open carry to make it more accepted, shouldn't we go to the strongest argument in favor of it for the same reason?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
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.
Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Or is that just crazy talk?, your thoughts?