Open carry rifle protest in Severn - with Trump flags

[Lafayette]

...In any society there is no such thing as natural rights or god given rights. Only rights that society allows. How society is structured and and its values determines what those are....

If you're framing this in terms of "practical" rights, sure. You can do what society allows (or rather, face consequences for what society will not allow.) But I think many of us might disagree that "natural" rights don't exist in a society. They may be unrecognized and disenfranchised rights, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Admittedly we don't live in a vacuum. Our actions and consequences are shaped by the company we keep. Society is a (more or less) organized set of mores and consequences for failing to adhere to those norms. But just because someone denies the existence of a dog just because they don't allow any in their house doesn't mean the dog ceases to exist.

 

[lazarus]

If you're framing this in terms of "practical" rights, sure. You can do what society allows (or rather, face consequences for what society will not allow.) But I think many of us might disagree that "natural" rights don't exist in a society. They may be unrecognized and disenfranchised rights, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Admittedly we don't live in a vacuum. Our actions and consequences are shaped by the company we keep. Society is a (more or less) organized set of mores and consequences for failing to adhere to those norms. But just because someone denies the existence of a dog just because they don't allow any in their house doesn't mean the dog ceases to exist.

Sure. But the issue comes down to what does a right mean.

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

In this case, as I put it, your legal entitlement can be changed. A “god given right” or natural right would fall under moral. But if only a small minority believe it is a moral entitlement, if society at large does not believe that, it has little practical value if you cannot exercise that moral entitlement your belief system holds in society. Sure, it is important to have and stick to your belief system.

When it comes down to it, rights are only what society allows, or that you or your group can enforce (your microcosm of society).

I believe I have a right to your money, has no practical value unless society enforces my right or I can enforce what I believe is my right.

 

[Lafayette]

Sure. But the issue comes down to what does a right mean.

a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way.

In this case, as I put it, your legal entitlement can be changed. A “god given right” or natural right would fall under moral. But if only a small minority believe it is a moral entitlement, if society at large does not believe that, it has little practical value if you cannot exercise that moral entitlement your belief system holds in society. Sure, it is important to have and stick to your belief system.

When it comes down to it, rights are only what society allows, or that you or your group can enforce (your microcosm of society).

I believe I have a right to your money, has no practical value unless society enforces my right or I can enforce what I believe is my right.

I suppose Jeremy Bentham would agree with you. As for me, I’ll stick with John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.

 

[TI-tick]

Rights and responsibilities. Maybe SCOTUS will help out if it comes to it, but you want MD Legislature to ban long gun open carry next, this is how you get long gun open carry banned.

Look at CA for proof of this.

But I guess I've got BGOS after being infringed for 30 pluss years in CA.

 

[adit]

MAGA hat equals Trump flag?

Apparently this guy used to hang around in Chicago near a Subway shop open at 2am.....Juicy 2am subs...

 

[CruncherBlock]

Would opinions change if this guy lived in Baltimore City and he and his neighbors had been constant victims of gangs?

 

[wb3jma]

In any society there is no such thing as natural rights or god given rights. Only rights that society allows. How society is structured and and it’s values determines what those are.

Wrong the constitution was made determinant based on exactly the concept of Natural, God given rights. The point of which is that in abstract those rights are above the state or the majority. So your only part right, yea if your in the minority and you go out of your way to antagonize the majority no surprise they may not respect your rights even if in the long run they protect the majority as well.

Yet the left has taken over every institution in American society as an aggressive and over bearing minority realizing that such can control the majority from the top down once you have seized the initiative and the those institutions.

So in the end your wrong and if the right is ever able to realize it can pretty much do the same if it has the will and determination to shove the left aside by turning the tables it might actually get to a point where it can restablish rights on the intended basis again.

Problem is it's too blinkered and suffering from coginative dissonance to realize our culture no longer works on an Enlightenment model. It would rather A) Hunker down like if their quiet enough the Indians will pass them by rather than slaughter them or B) pretend things are salvageable and you can put humpty dumpty back together again as if it was 1980 still.

 

[wb3jma]

I suppose Jeremy Bentham would agree with you. As for me, I’ll stick with John Locke and Thomas Jefferson.

Actually he might be happier if we went full Hobbesian given the way the FBI is behaving we might not be to far off.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Kinda mixed up there .

Yes , once again the Marxists killed off all the " normal liberals " , socialists , anarchists , etc previously on their side .

But the Russians were premature/ mistaken in their estimations . The decimated Spanish Republicans became even more disorganised , and soundly defeated by the Spanish Nationalists and Germans . And Franco remained Dictator until passing away in 1975 .

 

[Biggfoot44]

Maybe it was the fascists that turned on each other?? I couldn't read it yet.

No . The Spanish Fascists and the German Nazis stayed tight . ( Franco stayed technically neutral in WWII , but leaned as pro Nazi as he could and keep a fig leaf of neutrality .

It was the Russians that killed off all the non Marxists on their own side . ( Antifa take note ! Y'all are the first ones the Communists will take out once they get the upper hand .)

 

[Scottysan]

Would opinions change if this guy lived in Baltimore City and he and his neighbors had been constant victims of gangs?

NOPE. He'd still be an ass-hat, doing that.

 

[Deep Lurker]

Archiving this story on the MDS public side, updated this morning.

Look how much the AACo cops have added to the protection of those school children.

At one point there were EIGHT POLICE OFFICERS standing with J’den, making it the safest street corner in MD:

J’den, it’s time to put your AR-15 down. Do it before someone gets hurt.

A 20-year-old man has been walking in his Anne Arundel County neighborhood with a fully loaded assault-style weapon to protest a new Maryland gun law. It’s terrifying kids and parents

www.thebaltimorebanner.com

 

[Bob A]

Freedom is frightening to some. Especially in places where the populace expects the State to take care of them.

Meanwhile, the gent depicted is, IMO, taking liberties with his liberty.

 

[coinboy]

The second amendment is an inalienable right that can not be voted away by the majority. This is why it was enshrined as so in the constitution.

I believe in the man's protest, just not how he is waiving it around.

On a side note,
I'm still unsure whether SB1 bans open carry of a rifle or just handguns.

 

[Seagrave1963]

On another side note, anyone have insight on why the media has started using the "AR-15 style" description for all long guns?

 

[Slackdaddy]

Would opinions change if this guy lived in Baltimore City and he and his neighbors had been constant victims of gangs?

Have you been to Pioneer City in Severn ?? (or what ever they call it this week)

 

[MigraineMan]

On another side note, anyone have insight on why the media has started using the "AR-15 style" description for all long guns?

For the scare-factor, they should be calling it "M-16 style." (though I'm willing to bet they're soft-associating "AR" with "assault rifle" for mass-consumption by the uneducated.)

 

[Biggfoot44]

On another side note, anyone have insight on why the media has started using the "AR-15 style" description for all long guns?

Duhh ! It sounds scary .

 

[Seagrave1963]

Duhh ! It sounds scary .

IMHO - it's to link/associate any long gun with the "scary" / fear mongering "assault weapon" that they have plied for years. The use of the term "style" then allows this purposeful deception to be used without accountability (in the medias eyes, of course). It's the long game (over decades) to rid society of all guns "for the good of all". Once the long guns have been addressed, then handguns will be next because, statistically, more deaths occur by handgun. The need to address this "new" epidemic will be the rallying cry of the leftists. And many liberals will follow along because "it makes sense" to them.
I don't believe it's as simplistic as just being "scary", just my opinion and it won't get you or I a cup of coffee.

 

[rickyp]

I think this is a set up. Ol’ wess knows his anti carry laws will get overturned, he also knows the judge will not remove schools from the sensitive places . Because of this he will be easily able to include school bus stop under the school sensitive place. This will prevent people from carrying because everyone has to go trough a school bus stop to go or leave their home. What is more dangerous is they are not marked so innocent people will be arrested for carrying a gun on school controlled areas and not even know it.