Hey, there! Log in / Register
Another difference between New Hampshire and Massachusetts
By adamg on Tue, 08/25/2009 - 3:02pm
In New Hampshire, a topless woman walking down the street with a gun strapped to her hip would only be arrested for going topless.
Via Bruce.
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I like her style
What an outrageous discriminatory infringement on personal freedom, arresting her.
Why would she be arrested in
Why would she be arrested in Massachusetts if she had a license to carry? I mean, beside the boobie thing. We can't have boobies in Massachusetts, can we.
We can!
But you have to provide advance notice so as not to "shock and alarm" anybody. The Supreme Judicial Court said so last year.
Silly and absurd.
If I can be allowed to go around shirtless, so should she, regardless of advance warnings. It's that simple.
Yeah, I definitely have more
Yeah, I definitely have more of a problem with the gun. You've got to be a little nuts to think that flaunting one like that proves any sort of point.
That was the point
This young lady is not a gun nut -- she was wearing the gun to show the incongruity of what is and isn't allowed in NH.
Admittedly, I don't know too
Admittedly, I don't know too much about the Free Stater movement, but I was more under the impression, since all of the group was armed, that the weapons had to do with their interpretation of the Second Amendment and exercising what they believe to be their right to flaunt firearms as an individual liberty, like the same deal with not wearing a shirt.
I think you are right about
I think you are right about that. These folks are extreme libertarians, who actually think secession is a noble cause. That's their plan, to build up their numbers, then secede. She definitely was protesting government dress code, but also celebrating the right to bare arms (just not the right to bare arms bare).
Not Quite Correct
As an extreme Libertarian - but not a "free stater", although I gave it some serious thought when I was asked to join - I can tell you with certainty that the ultimate goal is not to secede. The ultimate goals are twofold:
1 - To build a large enough presence in one state of the union to allow the election of a majority presence in that state's government.
2 - To be able to deliver one state on the electoral map to a Libertarian (or similarly-minded) candidate for President.
That's how it was sold in the literature I saw, in any case.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I think you are probably
I think you are probably right. I was exposed to the group a year or two back on a political discussion board, and some of the people on that board took the discussion on a secession tangent, but now I'm thinking it was more of a logical next step type of statement rather than any official position of the group.
For what it's worth, when I say extreme libertarian, I'm really talking about folks who straddle the border with anarchism. Maybe you fit that category, but I've never really thought you did.
Thanks - I've Mellowed Over The Years
I used to be more extreme. I finally reached a point where I realized that being that far out on the fringe really wouldn't be effective at getting things changed. Unfortunately, most of the folks I knew then are still on that fringe wasting their time.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Facebook Page if anyone is
Facebook Page if anyone is interested.
She can keep both of her guns to herself as far as I'm concerned.
I am a libertarian and secession is a noble cause!!
yoo ha!