I don't believe any part of my post or response implied that, no.
The report said he had it in his car; he wasn't carrying it around in public. The police most likely stopped him for some other offense, and searched his vehicle. If he's using it as a weapon, he should be arrested and the weapon taken from him. Otherwise, he should be left alone.
The fact is, we all waltz around public with potential weapons; we all have fists, our heads, our feet, etc. In a moment's notice, we can unleash some real damage on people by using our bodies. I fail to see why carrying weapons around is grounds for arresting someone and removing it. Self-defense should be an adequate defense.
I've used this argument time and time again: if you remove a right to any sort of weapon, the only people with the weapons are the government and the criminals...neither of whom should ever be allowed to have all the weapons.
The report said he had it in his car; he wasn't carrying it around in public. The police most likely stopped him for some other offense, and searched his vehicle. If he's using it as a weapon, he should be arrested and the weapon taken from him. Otherwise, he should be left alone.
The fact is, we all waltz around public with potential weapons; we all have fists, our heads, our feet, etc. In a moment's notice, we can unleash some real damage on people by using our bodies. I fail to see why carrying weapons around is grounds for arresting someone and removing it. Self-defense should be an adequate defense.
I've used this argument time and time again: if you remove a right to any sort of weapon, the only people with the weapons are the government and the criminals...neither of whom should ever be allowed to have all the weapons.
