I think it’s messed up on one hand, but then on the other, I think about people in countries that have ZERO rights. What about the women that are forced to cover their entire faces and bodies while living in 90-100 + degree weather? etc… When I think about that, it makes me think that maybe it’s not so bad that IN A PROTECTED AREA, I was asked to ID myself for security purposes.
Realistically though, maybe this cop was just misunderstanding his duties. Maybe those dudes were causing a scene that was not in that video.
lol at the guy whining about his rights, it was a world summit they were securing. the moved major league baseball games to eliminate potential risk, so because some whiny bitch with a camera is crying his rights are being violated…here comes the waaaaaaambulance
edit: lol at being spot checked everywhere in canada…holy hyperbole batman
No responsible gun owner would go near the G20 with that stuff in their vehicle. If you were going to do it as a way to bring attention to yourself and a rights issue, like the way those guys with rifles did while Obama was in town, then you make sure you’re on the right side of the law before hand. You don’t show up and when the police ask you about it go, “I’m not sure why that stuff is in my car”.
I don’t see why the g8 and the g20 could not have been held at the same place up north? Would enforcing one fenced perimeter been better than two? Obviously it would have been a LOT less strenuous on the downtown core.
I do agree though, why does this need to be in the middle of a major city? Cities are the breeding ground of the liberal types who are most likely to make a big deal out of it. While I don’t agree with having it a military installation it would seem that picking a more secluded resort would eliminate the majority of problems they had. Far easier to secure, far less foot traffic, far more work for the 20-somethings to have to protest. Simply making them drive an hour means 95% of them wouldn’t bother going at all.
If it was being held say at UB North and there were security blockades up all over Maple I wouldn’t be cruising around Maple with my guns, no.
There are always limitations based on a need for security. I’m pretty close to having my unrestricted carry license. It doesn’t mean that if Obama came back to town I would expect to be allowed to carry while attending his speech.
So you’re essentially saying that there are times when it’s “acceptable” for the Government to modify the second amendment.
What do you do when your definition of acceptable and the government’s diverge?
What if the G20 conference was (hypothetically) being held on your street?
Holding a major world economic summit in the middle of my middle class residential neighborhood in Williamsville is quite a stretch, but I’ll play along.
There would still be a perimeter around the summit that would be classified as a secure site. There is no way around this. You simply can’t have this many world leaders in one place while still allowing the public full and unlimited access. If they came to my house and said something along the lines of, “we need to confiscate your guns until the summit is over because you’re inside the secure zone” I’d probably hire a lawyer, but that’s no where near the case here since we’re not talking about people’s homes.
Bottom line for me, it comes down to what I’ll call reasonable inconvenience vs necessary security. Since you want to take an extreme hypothetical let me pose one to you. Do you think they should simply have no security? Just leave the space open exactly as it is any other day of the year? Do you think there wouldn’t be a violent attack or do you just not care if there is?
For me it seems like a reasonable concession to have to provide ID to go inside an area you’ve been told for months was going to be having a major summit with major security.
