Would there be so much outrage if the demonstrations were about an incorrectly perceived disease (like AIDS) and the restrictions placed due to "public unease and fear"? ...or where one had to sit on a bus?
I realize those pesky civil rights marches of the fifties and sixties caused "distress amongst the public", did those demonstrations make the citizens deprived of their rights less worthy to be heard, and less deserving the exercise of Constitutionally guaranteed practices? Some thought so, and pronounced them "backward, even sub human". (As opposed to "bucktoothed rednecks with small reproductive organs").
And perhaps more important, who were those that chose to suppress and criticize, back in those days so easily forgotten?
The issue is NOT firearms. The issue is the recognition and sworn defense of the Constitution, not just those parts of it that happen to be trendy, and not just those rights that avoid making others "uncomfortable".
I realize those pesky civil rights marches of the fifties and sixties caused "distress amongst the public", did those demonstrations make the citizens deprived of their rights less worthy to be heard, and less deserving the exercise of Constitutionally guaranteed practices? Some thought so, and pronounced them "backward, even sub human". (As opposed to "bucktoothed rednecks with small reproductive organs").
And perhaps more important, who were those that chose to suppress and criticize, back in those days so easily forgotten?
The issue is NOT firearms. The issue is the recognition and sworn defense of the Constitution, not just those parts of it that happen to be trendy, and not just those rights that avoid making others "uncomfortable".
Last edited: