Seeing it, as I do, as a statement that all people having an inherent right of self-defense--but doesn't it seem to anyone else that openly wearing a firearm at a protest is a kind of tacit threat? There's nothing really subtle about it.

I'm curious. Why would someone actually arm himself just to stand around with a politically charged sign? Especially one suggesting that violence is a viable political act? And why is it that the RW folks feel a need to be armed at a protest, anyway? Are they really expecting to be attacked? By whom?

It's interesting to note that the only cases of domestic terrorism we've had in the United States have been at the hands of people of similar political ideology to these folks and yet, somehow, they get to walk away from what most sane, intelligent people would look at as a deliberate yet semi-subtle threat. "Remember, we're armed. Step wide, if you know what's good for you."

Certainly very few people would care to debate him face-to-face. Maybe that's what he was afraid of. Not being attacked, but being told what kind of ninny he is.

Personally I'd like to nominate this fellow for the next Olympics, as a member of the javelin-catching team. I think he's a shoe-in.

And why is it okay to wear a sidearm at a protest when it's probably not okay for me to carry a katana strapped across my back and a pair of nunchaku in a holster on my hip? What's the difference? The fact that there's not a powerful katana lobby? The fact that there's not a National Nunchaku Association? How about a rattan escrima stick? Or a telescoping baton? Why is it okay to carry a loaded pistol on one's hip when it's clear that a firearm is specifically an offensive weapon when a stick or a baton is just as likely to be used defensively?

I give up.