(Photo: Ron Page, The Appleton, Wis., Post-Crescent)
Mark Scheffler’s protest against the legality of open carry in Appleton, WI is pure creative common folk genius. A couple weeks ago, two presumably militant zealots, Charles Branstrom and Ross Bauman, decided to walk through the downtown farmer’s market carrying AR-15 assault rifles on their backs for “self defense.” They were not arrested nor fined despite several 911 calls and many feeling, rightfully so, uncomfortable.
In steps Mark Scheffler who decides he will point out the absurdity of gun laws by carrying his brown hen, named Winchester, in his arms through the farmer’s market. While carrying assault rifles through a downtown farmer’s market is completely legal, carrying a chicken, ironically something inherent in order for a farmer’s market to exist, is illegal and carries a fine of $263.50. It is also worthy to note that Scheffler owns a gun himself and pretty much feels like I do, “Guns have their place…they don’t belong in downtown Appleton.”
It scares me that a seemingly rational person “illegally” carries a hen whereas the quite possibly mentally impaired are the ones legally carrying assault weapons. Let’s think of the worst case scenario in each situation…
Vice and more so their TV show have really been stepping up their game lately. This article about Benghazi’s gun market begs the question.
If you feel the US government has too much control over guns is this what you’d prefer?
Photo from the linked article on Vice.
This is the first in a series that’s going to called “Ready to Bake.” The idea behind Ready to Bake is that there are a lot of ideas that would just take too long to write out in detail so I’m going to present the executive summary of my idea without the rigorous explanation and attention to detail these thoughts deserve.
When I hear people speak about The Constitution of the United State, they treat it as if it were written in stone, the beauty of The Constitution is that is was intended to be a fluid document. Not changing on whim like quicksilver but ready for slower change like molasses. This should be pretty evident from the fact that the first acts were adding ten amendments to the document. So when I hear rhetoric about what The Founding Fathers intended, I call shenanigans. They would likely tell you what they intended is no longer relevant and that is why the document can and must change. Just like the repeal of the 18th Amendment other amendments are open for repeal.
Which gets me to the 2nd Amendment and the much discussed right to bear arms. If you think The Founding Fathers imagined a gun that could fire multiple times a minute, let alone a second, you clearly aren’t well versed in muzzle loading and probably think The Constitution was a Google Doc that the signers collaborated on in a Google Hangout.
As for those who would also speak in absolutes, take a look at the 1st Amendment wherein we are still granted the right to speak freely “or abridging the freedom of speech” but there are limits, you cannot yell fire when there is none in a crowded building, you cannot libel or slander. As such it is reasonable that my right to bear arms can be restricted with reasonable restrictions like not being allowed to own a weapon of mass destruction or a fully automatic assault rifle.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has a great writeup about The Founders intents of the Second Amendment
If you’ve got a problem, yo I’ll solve it. Following the lead of the NRA president, I’ve applied the same logic to solving problems. If you have a problem and it needs solving I suggest you check out NRA Problem Solver to find the solution to your problem.