[627PCFan]

Found this article on USA Today.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/08/man-with-assault-rifle-joins-crowds-outside-presidents-phoenix-venue.html

Man with assault rifle joins crowds outside president's Phoenix venue

President Obama speaks this afternoon to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, but the crowds outside the convention center are all about health care, pro and con, The Arizona Republic reports.

Reporter John Faherty observes that one sight that is "perhaps a little unnerving" to those in charge of keeping order is a man with a pistol on his hip and an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle on a strap over his shoulder.

When asked why he was armed, Faherty reports, the man chose to remain anonymous, saying only, "Because I can do it. In Arizona, I still have some freedoms."

Detective J. Oliver of the Phoenix police department confirms that what he is doing is "perfectly legal."

"We are here to keep the peace," Oliver tells the paper. "If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time."

Mods-sorry if its a dupe-

[kingpin008]

Kudos to the anonymous rifleman. Good soundbite too - quick, to the point, and completely non-loony.

Good job on the part of Det. Oliver as well, for affirming that the man was within his rights and not playing into the usual reactionary nonsense.

[Prince Yamato]

I like it!

[M2 Carbine]

Good job on the part of Det. Oliver as well, for affirming that the man was within his rights and not playing into the usual reactionary nonsense.
+1...

[Lone_Gunman]

When asked why he was armed, Faherty reports, the man chose to remain anonymous, saying only, "Because I can do it. In Arizona, I still have some freedoms."

He isn't being totally honest with that statement.

If he was only just doing it because he can, then why did he chose the venue he did? I wonder if he carries his AR to the grocery store or Wal Mart. I seriously doubt it.

The reason he did this was as a publicity stunt. He got his fifteen minutes of fame.

The police did a good job. The guy broke no laws, and did not deserve any harassment.

[jimmyraythomason]

I don't know,he may very well carry it to the grocery store. If taking it to a place where the president of The United States was speaking didn't send up red flags then I doubt if it would be noticed at the grocery store. Who knows maybe everybody carries ARs when shopping in Arizona.

[Peakbagger46]

Hmmm..... When Obama went to our jurisdiction, we were told to leave our issued long guns at home. Actually, we were told that showing up in uniform with a rifle had the potential to be instantly fatal via a Secret Service sniper. I do have some thoughts on Obama's utalization of the Secret Service, and let me just say it seems "different" from past presidents.

That guy had some big ones, and I image he spent a good deal of his day in someone's crosshairs.

"Is that a red dot on your forehead, or did you become a Hindu?"

[Shung]

Because I can do it

made my day !

[bababooey32]

This guys behavior comes under the heading of "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it!"

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

He isn't being totally honest with that statement.

If he was only just doing it because he can, then why did he chose the venue he did? I wonder if he carries his AR to the grocery store or Wal Mart. I seriously doubt it.

The reason he did this was as a publicity stunt. He got his fifteen minutes of fame.


Was he trying to make a scene? Probably.
Did he do it just for attention? Probably.
Did it work? Yes.

By exercising his right to carry his rifle, within legal limitations, by getting on the news today he probably reminded several million people that they have a right to bear arms and no nearby kittens/young minorities were instantly vaporized in a hail of hollowpoint gunfire. I applaud him for doing what he did safely, responsibly, and without looking like a loon.

[pbearperry]

If enough guys do this,I am sure that right will be taken away.Just because you can do something,it might not be that good an idea at that time and place.Everyone has a right to pick his own nose,but do you want to see someone doing it at the buffett table.Just a thought.

[FFMedic]

Sooo.... let's not do this guys or they might not let us do it anymore? Makes sense to me!

FFMedic

[nwilliams]

I'm sure he put the secret service a bit on edge:rolleyes:

I'm sure more than a few snipers had him in their scopes the entire time he was there. It's always been my understanding that the secret service doesn't smile upon people who carry guns in the presence of the president:uhoh:

[Lone_Gunman]

I'm sure he put the secret service a bit on edge

It would be interesting to know exactly how close he got to the president. My guess is he did not get very close at all, or else he would have been arrested or more likely shot.

Remember that guy who made the news two weeks ago for open carrying at a presidential event? It turns out he was no where near the president.

These guys are just getting their 15 minutes of fame at the expense of the 2nd Amendment.

[Vonderek]

I don't think it was a publicity stunt in the sense that you mean it. I believe he was making a political statement by exercising his both his First and Second A. rights in a high-profile way. To condemn him the way I'm reading here then we may as well all give up and just go along with the program. If using our First and Second Amendment rights is as bad in this case as some of you are making it out to be, well, we may as well not have them anymore. :barf:

[geophysicishooter]

not sure what the laws specifically in AZ are but the laws here (in TX) state that you're not supposed to show up to a political rally strapped. That's one of the restrictions on concealed carry. (I'll have to look up the statutes again to make sure) Obviously the man with the "assault rifle" (:rolleyes:) wasn't carrying concealed at all but I would have imagined the same spirit of the law would apply..

any comments?

If indeed it's legal to show up to a politcal rally in AZ open carrying a pistol and with an AR strapped to your shoulder, good on him!

More Americans should have a firmer understanding of their rights and should be proactive in not only excercising them but in protecting and defending them as well!!

[MisterMike]

I applaud him for doing what he did safely, responsibly, and without looking like a loon.

Not so sure about the last part of your sentence. In my lifetime, three presidents have been the target of assassination attempts--one died, one almost died, and the other escaped unharmed. The assassination of a president is a cataclysmic event that strikes at the very heart of democracy, and we should be very careful about evoking memories of those horrible acts.

I don't particularly like our current Prez, but the fact remains that the carrying of a semi-automatic rifle at a presidential event conjures up a lot of bad images and memories, even for a right-leaning gun aficianado like me.

You may not think so and many others here may agree with you, but I guarantee you, most people thinks this guy looks like a threat to the President. I'd respectfully suggest that, while we may all cherish our rights to keep and bear arms, common sense suggests that there are circumstances where openly carrying a semiautomatic rifle makes us all look like loons. This is one of them. The guy's an idiot.

[jakemccoy]

Maybe different types of people respond to different threads. Whenever a thread about open carry comes up, it seems that over half the people here have a list of reasons not to open carry. However, in threads about open carrying pistols and rifles at a Presidential event, the threads are filled with one-liners about being all for it. I don't understand the inconsistency.

I consider myself extremely pro-gun. However, at the same time, let's not forget history. In the 60's, the Black Panthers pulled stunts like this guy in this case. What followed were some fairly strict gun laws that spread throughout the states. Was there a large-scale revolt against the gun laws? No, there wasn't. I'll bet the same NON-revolt would happen today after additional gun control laws are passed as a result of people showing up with rifles at Presidential venues.

A recognition of history would be nice. There's nothing new under the sun. I'm just not understanding the benefit that this stunt serves for the pro-gun cause. By the way, it is a stunt. I'm not buying for one second that this guy goes grocery shopping with an assault rifle strapped around his neck. Further, if he did, I believe he would be stopped, questioned and probably arrested, even if legal in Arizona. That's a definite if he "looked the part" so to speak. By the way, I agree with the poster above who said this guy would have gotten shot if he had gotten too close to the President.

[nalioth]

"assault rifle"?

Was it selective fire?

Please stop feeding the anti's agenda.

[gidaeon]

hmmm... if a person is going to do this whether to exercise freedom, make a political statement, or merely inappropriately get attention what do you guys think about doing such with no magazine inserted, and the bolt open?


To most I know this wouldn't matter but it might be noticed by some of the more 'important' observers (S.S., LEO ect.,) Helpful or pointless? I'm with those who say the little demonstration was not wise. I'd rather see someone do it unquestionably far away such that there is no question at to the proximity to the POTUS and preferably something like open carry rather than display of multiple firearms.

[CoRoMo]

This guys behavior comes under the heading of "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it!"

I don't know... I think sometimes it should be done. To say that, just because we CAN exercise our freedoms publicly, doesn't mean we SHOULD do it, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I know it is way out of the mainstream now, totally non-PC, but that perspective is the shame of it, rather than the act.

[jimmyraythomason]

So we must all ask ourselves" What have I done to promote my second amendment rights?" I don't think expressing opinions about what someone else has done on a gun rights specific internet forum counts as being politically active.

[jakemccoy]

Does anyone have a pic of this guy standing with his rifle?

[ArmedBear]

The reason he did this was as a publicity stunt.

What's wrong with that?

The objective of the anti-gun movement for several decades has been to drive guns underground. If we keep them locked up, then they (and we) can be demonized. Nobody knows that most of his neighbors have guns. People begin to consider the mere presence of a firearm to be "scary".

Guns in the hands of regular citizens need publicity. I'm all for it.

The only other option: only the guns used to murder people ever get publicity, and the mere image of a gun is easier for the anti-gunners to equate with the image of a mass shooting.

[Sav .250]

It takes some big "stones" to walk around with an AK-47(?) slung on your shoulder. Saw it on TV.

[ArmedBear]

This doesn't raise eyebrows in Israel.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8BqjQ3bBqfw/RmMrA8_YbhI/AAAAAAAAAGA/zByMcKtux4E/s320/idf-reservist.jpg

Maybe if some of you stop bashing people on our own side, it won't be such a problem here in the United States.

[bigalexe]

Who knows maybe everybody carries ARs when shopping in Arizona.

Hmm, I live in Michigan but maybe I should try that next time I go to get some ketchup.

I have found it rather interesting the number of individuals who have been permitted to carry assumedly loaded firearms within any distance of the POTUS especially at large venues. I personally believe that although we all like our RKBA the fact is that the POTUS is an extremely high profile target for many individuals who may or may not be US Citizens (If you doubt this I direct you to google the names Oswald, Boothe, and Fromme). I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the President at all times.

[jakemccoy]

ArmedBear, it looks like those girls are in their pajamas at a bar somewhere.

If you have evidence proving otherwise, then please share, thanks.

[CoRoMo]

those girls are in their pajamas at a bar somewhere.

If you have evidence proving otherwise, then please share

What does it matter?

[nathan]

Its good he wasnt terminated by the Secret Service sniper who will do it with gusto. Dont be stupid, the President is ringed with the top guys whose job is to make sure he is safe and sound.

Keep the guns at home and watch TV. Or go hunting coyotes in the desert and try not to prove yourself .

[Reid73]

You may not think so and many others here may agree with you, but I guarantee you, most people thinks this guy looks like a threat to the President. I'd respectfully suggest that, while we may all cherish our rights to keep and bear arms, common sense suggests that there are circumstances where openly carrying a semiautomatic rifle makes us all look like loons. This is one of them. The guy's an idiot. Yes indeed. What's next? Open carry of AR-15s at banks? In university classrooms? Outside abortion clinics or courthouses? These sort of crazies just provoke gun haters and alienate responsible gun owners.

Does anyone have a pic of this guy standing with his rifle? You can see a photo and video clip here (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/man-carrying-an-assault-rifle-and-pistol-outside-obama-event.php).

This doesn't raise eyebrows in Israel.As you know, Israel is a different country and has its own, different, problems: e.g. suicide bombers. Apples and oranges, really.

Maybe if some of you stop bashing people on our own side, it won't be such a problem here in the United States. What side is that? :confused:

[ArmedBear]

ArmedBear, it looks like those girls are in their pajamas at a bar somewhere.

Apropos of nothing, just like your bizarre post challenging me to provide evidence of something for some reason, it sure looks like that to me, too, jake.:rolleyes:

[malix]

I don't particularly like our current Prez, but the fact remains that the carrying of a semi-automatic rifle at a presidential event conjures up a lot of bad images and memories, even for a right-leaning gun aficianado like me.

You may not think so and many others here may agree with you, but I guarantee you, most people thinks this guy looks like a threat to the President. I'd respectfully suggest that, while we may all cherish our rights to keep and bear arms, common sense suggests that there are circumstances where openly carrying a semiautomatic rifle makes us all look like loons. This is one of them. The guy's an idiot.

Agreed.

[MisterMike]

As jakemccoy noted, this is exactly the sort of stunt that invites anti-gun legislation. Now that there have been two of these incidents reported in the past couple of weeks, we will likely see legislative proposals to prohibit weapons within xxx feet of the president. From there, it's easily extended to judges, legislators, you name it. All that this clown has done is to singlehandedly jeopardize all our rights. The gains we have made are extremely fragile, and this guy is creating a giant opening for the antis.

He has accomplished nothing positive.

[ArmedBear]

As you know, Israel is a different country and has its own, different, problems: e.g. suicide bombers.

And their answer to that is to have an armed populace.

That should be our answer, not the "gun-free zones" advocated by too people here. Our reaction shouldn't be indistinguishable from that of the anti's (if you think there's any danger somewhere, we must ban guns there).

You can disagree with me, but I think you're wrong.

[jakemccoy]

Apropos of nothing, just like your bizarre post challenging me to provide evidence of something for some reason, it sure looks like that to me, too, jake.

uh, ok

I'm guessing you'd also get defensive if I wanted evidence that pic was from Israel.

What does it matter?

Well, if those girls are not in their pajamas, it would take the pic out the "too weird for comprehension" category.

[Reid73]

Well, there aren't many suicide bombers running around in the USA (and thank goodness for that). Unless and until that sort of anarchy happens, there is no obvious case to be made for everyone going armed to the teeth at all times.

[datruth]

As gun owners, we already have a "threat" whether perceived or actual of loss of gun ownership, this type of stuff draws the wrong type of attention to gun owners. stop taunting, we have a lawful right to open carry, does that mean do it, when the situation dictates, both situations did not create practical instances for open carry, just stupidity in my opinion, asking for attention.

[Lone_Gunman]

Guns in the hands of regular citizens need publicity. I'm all for it.

I agree. But I question whether or not a Presidential event is the proper place to be doing that.

[ArmedBear]

I'm guessing you'd also get defensive if I wanted evidence that pic was from Israel.

I'm not defensive. I didn't see that your post made any sense, and I still don't.

If you care where the picture is from, I'm sure you've heard of Google. That's how I found it.

[TOTC]

It's always been my understanding that the secret service doesn't smile upon people who carry guns in the presence of the president


Soooo, then by your logic, they should be absolutely crapping their pants when a secret service agent is armed in the presence of the POTUS?

[JWF III]

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the President at all times.


He has no more right to life and self defense than any one of us. The Constitution protects his Rights no less than it protects ours. Yes he is high profile, and a likely target, so extra caution by those protecting him is one thing. Infringing on every civilians right is another.

Wyman

ETA-Unless and until that sort of anarchy happens, there is no obvious case to be made for everyone going armed to the teeth at all times.


By the time that type of anarchy happens, "Armed to the Teeth" will mean a style of carrying an extra sharp stick.

[84B20]

Think about it, people, both of these OC events are most likely due to the fact that Obama has had an anti agenda. This probably wouldn't have happened during Bush's administration. Plus the groundswell of pro 2A has been building over the last few years possibly partly due to the increase in membership in this and other pro gun boards as well as an increase in CCW permits throught the country among other reasons. JMHO

[Reid73]

I question whether or not a Presidential event is the proper place to be doing that. Exactly.

Responsible firearms usage should be showcased. E.g. target shooting, preferably with women and/or children involved. Good clean fun.

Not some guy with a scary-looking automatic rifle at a presidential event.

both of these OC events are most likely due to the fact that Obama has had an anti agendaWell, if he wasn't anti-gun before, he sure must be now. Guess those guys never heard of Dale Carnegie.

[lobo9er]

This guys behavior comes under the heading of "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it!"

if he wants to why shouldn't he is my question. sure it was politcally motivated but hes proving arizona is a bit free'r than NY or chicago. its to bad media ussually makes these guys look like crazies, whens its the poloticians that are the crazies that don't want us to be able to carry guns. i think its crazy that people look at me walking down a road or crossing to a hunting spot with my shotgun wierd, like i shouldn't be insight with a gun.

[Lone_Gunman]

He has no more right to life and self defense than any one of us. The Constitution protects his Rights no less than it protects ours.

Its not about protecting the President's life. It is about protecting the sanctity of the US political process. An assassin can subvert the will of the people.

Protecting the President has much more to do with preserving the Republic than protecting one man.

[DocCas]

bigalexe saidI personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the President at all times.So, you would not object to your 2nd Amendment rights being rescinded when the President is nearby?

How about your 1st Amendment rights? Would you mind if your freedom of speech were rescinded when the President was nearby? The TV and printed media people were not allowed to film or quote the President or anyone else within say, 500 yards of him?

Or your freedom of religion? Would you mind if there was a sign which said, "No Jews within 500 yards of the President?" Or "No Christians within 500 yards of the President?"

How about your 4th Amendment rights? Would you submit to a random strip search, without any probably cause, if the President were in town and you happened to be walking down the sidewalk of the street he was traveling on?

Why are we so quick to give up our rights? The only things I am willing to give up are those things which have no value to me. My liberty is very valuable. It is worth contending for. :scrutiny:

[earlthegoat2]

As you know, Israel is a different country and has its own, different, problems: e.g. suicide bombers.

Der, 9/11. If the United States took a page out of Isreals book we wouldnt have such a sissy society.

this is exactly the sort of stunt that invites anti-gun legislation.

I dont agree I think stunts like Columbine are what invite anti gun legislation.


Aaaaaaand, publicity stunt or not, the guy was making a statement at the right place and time.

[Lone_Gunman]

How about your 1st Amendment rights? Would you mind if your freedom of speech were rescinded when the President was nearby?

It already has been.

[ArmedBear]

Responsible firearms usage should be showcased. E.g. target shooting, preferably with women and/or children involved. Good clean fun.

I agree.

And carrying in public, too.

Many Americans used to carry guns in public, and it was not a reason for panic. Somewhere, the anti-gun movement worked to shift that and to demonize gun ownership and carrying.

By normalizing gun ownership and the carrying of firearms again -- as it was for most of our history -- we can return to this.

By cowering in fear, as most of you are, we make sure there's no chance we ever will.

[jakemccoy]

Let's have honest discourse please.

How close do you think this guy could get to the President?

If you think he won't be able to get within handshaking distance, what is the approximate distance away that this guy would have to be so as not to get shot? Pick a distance. If you think he can't get within 5 feet, then what is the distance???

We may have Second Amendment rights around the President. Nevertheless, when the Secret Service disagrees with you, you'll probably get shot.

[ArmedBear]

Pick a distance, jake.

Who cares? Again, that's apropos of nothing but your desire to demand that others answer your questions that are unrelated to the issue at hand.

You live in a place where open carry is both illegal and culturally demonized. I used to.

I don't any more.

You probably don't understand what it's like to live somewhere that guns aren't considered inherently evil.

I do, now.

How close someone can get to the President has nothing to do with anything. I'm sure that, if there were any indication that the guy was attacking anyone, the Secret Service would have filled him with holes. 5 feet, or 500 yards. That's their job. So?

[ishida]

To you, Jake.

What good are 2nd Amendment Rights when you bow down when they take them?
When you ridicule those who fight for them?

Just who was it who said "leave the guns at home and just watch TV"?
Maybe he shouldn't be part of this movement, especially if he happens ot have a carry permit.

[jakemccoy]

Some people are talking pretty big here on the Internet.

By the way, it does matter how close. If he was within, say, 20 feet of the President, then we'd be having a different discussion...

[Kingofthehill]

I gotta say, i hope it doesn't come off the wrong way... But im shocked and glad its a black guy doing it.

JOe

[DocCas]

Lone_Gunman saidIt already has been. Can you give me an example?

[nwilliams]

I'm wondering if this guy had picked a non-EBR style rifle to carry if things wouldn't be viewed differently.

I'm thinking that perhaps his choosing to carry an "assault rifle" he gave the media something more to bitch about. Now when the media talks and writes about this guy they can use words that stir up anger in gun control activist, words like "assault rifle", "military style" and "machine gun".

Perhaps if the guy had picked a .22 bolt rifle or some other very non-threatening rifle to carry it wouldn't be so easy for the anti-gun people to criticize him. If the guy was simply trying to make a statement about the right to own guns then I think he stirred up a bit too much of a hornets nest by choosing to carry an EBR. I personally don't think his goal was to demonstrate his right to carry, he was there as a proud gun owner trying to make a statement. I think he decided to carry an EBR to tick off the gun control freaks and that may have been a mistake.

[ArmedBear]

By the way, it does matter how close. If he was within, say, 20 feet of the President, then we'd be having a different discussion...

We would? How so, jake?

The only problem I see with what this guy did was that by choosing to carry an "assault rifle" he gave the media something more to bitch about.

Maybe so, maybe not. I doubt that the fact that he didn't shoot anyone and didn't plan to was completely lost on everyone who saw the picture, no matter how the MSNBC androids ranted about it.

[rbernie]

In my lifetime, three presidents have been the target of assassination attempts--one died, one almost died, and the other escaped unharmed. The assassination of a president is a cataclysmic event that strikes at the very heart of democracy, and we should be very careful about evoking memories of those horrible acts.

I don't particularly like our current Prez, but the fact remains that the carrying of a semi-automatic rifle at a presidential event conjures up a lot of bad images and memories, even for a right-leaning gun aficianado like me.
And the fact that nothing bad happened is proof positive that it's possible to be armed and not be a nutzoid homicidal threat to the President (or anyone else).

Just as the case with the armed protester in NH, we (as a community) seem intent upon making this into far more of a negative situation than it really is....

Every time this happens, the newsies froth and rant about the evils of it, and yet at the same time are clearly exposing the simple fact that NOTHING BAD HAPPENED.

[jakemccoy]

We would? How so, jake?

If you don't know how the discussion would be different, then never mind.

[ArmedBear]

I can perhaps guess some things you might mean. I'm curious about what you DO mean.

Note that YOU said it, and I'm asking for clarification. I didn't just make up the question.

(Given that I know that I could make a head shot at 300 yards with decent optics, I still don't see what difference it makes. The difference, to me, is in whether he sought to attack anyone, or not.)

[CoRoMo]

Originally Posted by CoRoMo
What does it matter?
Posted by jakemccoy
Well, if those girls are not in their pajamas, it would take the pic out the "too weird for comprehension" category.

That's right, it doesn't matter to this discussion.
But I'm going to have to tell my wife to stop wearing pajamas out in public now.:eek:

[jakemccoy]

I'm wondering if this guy had picked a non-EBR style rifle to carry if things wouldn't be viewed differently.

I'm thinking that perhaps his choosing to carry an "assault rifle" he gave the media something more to bitch about. Now when the media talks and writes about this guy they can use words that stir up anger in gun control activist, words like "assault rifle", "military style" and "machine gun".

Perhaps if the guy had picked a .22 bolt rifle or some other very non-threatening rifle to carry it wouldn't be so easy for the anti-gun people to criticize him. If the guy was simply trying to make a statement about the right to own guns then I think he stirred up a bit too much of a hornets nest by choosing to carry an EBR. I personally don't think his goal was to demonstrate his right to carry, he was there as a proud gun owner trying to make a statement.

I know hardly anything about this style of rifle. Most of my experience is with guns that are blued steel and wood. To me, the gun on this guy's back looks like a toy or an airsoft rifle. Few rifles would look less threatening to me. Imagine someone how has even less familiar with guns.

[Cougfan2]

Just for grins I went to the Huffingtonpost web site to see if there was any mention of this. The article was posted there as well and the comments clearly showed what I thought they would. More calls for gun control and ranting about gun owners being violent loons.

It's not like the people that patronize that site regularly are our friends, but it shows that they guy with the AK played right into the stereotype of what leftist people think about gun owners.

Not sayin' what the guy did was wrong or right, but you have to realize how most of the public is going to view this. He could have made the same point by open carrying a handgun without looking so much like he was just doing it just to make a point IMHO.

[Frandy]

Sure, he has the right to do it, but he's "preachin' to the choir." In my opinion, actions like these don't change people's minds one way or the other. They might even ratchet up the anger and fist-shaking. Sorry, but I don't think we need to ratchet up more anger and fist-shaking.

It's not like the people that patronize that site regularly are our friends, but it shows that they guy with the AK played right into the stereotype of what leftist people think about gun owners.


Well, on this site he plays into another "stereotype," now doesn't he? To many of us, he's a guy who is defending his right to bear arms, showing people that we need to defend our freedoms... For all we know (and I don't), he's just a smart-ass, attention-getting, borderline loon. It's all in the eyes of the beholder, laddies and lassies.

[ArmedBear]

Well, it would seem to me that reminding people that he didn't shoot anybody would be of more value than some of the knee-jerk condemnations that seem prevalent in this post.

For those with no historical context, Gun Control in America resulted from people shooting other people, not in self defense. As long as it was common for people to carry guns if they wanted or needed them at the time, just like hammers or lunchboxes, there was no call for gun control.

[jakemccoy]

The fact is that there is a buffer zone within which the Secret Service is going to shoot you (or take you out somehow) if you're open carrying a gun. That's the point of this entire thread.

Who cares if this guy is standing 10 miles away from where the President is ever going to be? Nobody I hope. I surely don't care. If this guy is standing way outside of the buffer zone, then all of this is media hype and an insignificant discussion.

[MisterMike]

Every time this happens, the newsies froth and rant about the evils of it, and yet at the same time are clearly exposing the simple fact that NOTHING BAD HAPPENED.

And certainly I'm glad for that. I don't see it the way you do, though. I'm repeating myself, but my concern is that this sort of display leads to the inescapable conclusion in the eyes of many that "something has to be done." What matters is not our perception of how this plays out ("Nothing bad happened," proving that no one need fear bad things happening) versus a perception that antis--and, I'd venture, a few neutrals harbor--"Nothing bad happened . . . but it's just a matter of time, as long as we allow this sort of thing to occur."

In saying this, I'm mindful of the tepid support that the Supreme Court has voiced for an individual RKBA, noting quite clearly that it is subject to "reasonable" limits. I can see the very clear possibility of this leading to legal limitations on RKBA around government officials, couched as "reasonable" measures to protect our political system.

One contrary point I'd concede though, is that sometimes engaging in "weird" behavior ultimately leads to social acceptance. It happened with the gay rights movement--many of us were shocked to see public displays of affection between gay men or gay women. Now, decades later, we barely blink an eye when confronted with gay imagery. Maybe that will happen with us . . . I suspect it won't.

[bababooey32]

if he wants to why shouldn't he is my question.

If I have to explain...

Good grief. The security of the leader of the free world is incredibly important - no matter who he/she is. To undertake actions meant to antagonize those responsible for providing that security is a BAD IDEA - even if it is technically legal. It's just a bad idea. It sounds like it was handled professionally, but I doubt that is the reaction this guy was looking for. He was hoping for confrontation so that he could FURTHER spout off about his rights. The secret service was smart enough not to give him that opportunity.

Again: Being allowed to do something is not the same as that "something" being a good idea.

When I lived in Santa Monica California it was made clear that pedestrians had the right of way in any crosswalk. Unfortunately some people failed to consider all the avriables (car mass, speed, stopping ability) and would trot out into the crosswalk with cars speeding towards them. Technically legal, but a really bad idea!

[ArmedBear]

The fact is that there is a buffer zone within which the Secret Service is going to shoot you (or take you out somehow) if you're open carrying a gun. That's the point of this entire thread.

Only in your mind, jake, if you read through the thread. No wonder I didn't know what your point was.

[Johnny Dollar]

This doesn't raise eyebrows in Israel.

Excellent pic Armed Bear.I love those rifles!:D

[ArmedBear]

He was hoping for confrontation so that he could FURTHER spout off about his rights. The secret service was smart enough not to give him that opportunity.

Wouldn't want someone to force the government's hand WRT our rights, would we?

It's not like there's a long tradition of doing that in this country, to protect or regain civil rights, or anything like that...:rolleyes:

Just get in the back of the bus, and shut up. That's the ticket.

[jakemccoy]

ArmedBear, take a pic of you standing right outside your property line with your rifle. It's way outside the buffer zone of the President. You didn't do anything special. Nobody cares.

You seem to be getting hyped up about this guy without knowing his proximity to the President. In contrast, I need a bit more information.

[ny32182]

Do they show how close the guy actually got to the President? I've little doubt that if he got to any point within 1000 yards and a clear line of fire, the SS would have ventilated him. He isn't going to walk up to the president with a firearm. It just isn't going to happen. So, knowing the media, I'm guessing the following is closer to the truth:

-The guy was probably WAY WAY far away from the speaking platform, at some area designated for protestors.

-The guy is making a political statement by carrying the rifle. Heck, I like and agree with the statement he is making. However, any time the media can say "guy showed up at a PRESIDENTIAL EVENT WITH A SNIPER ASSAULT BABY KILLING MACHINE GUN RIFLE!!!", the vast majority of people will picture a nutjob three feet from the Prez, just itching to assassinate their beloved savior. He looks like a loon to 99% of the population, period, and the media presentation will help make sure of it. While I appreciate what he was trying say, and agree with him, I don't think this is the best forum for expressing that view.

[nwilliams]

delete

[poco loco]

I can't quite call myself a liberal just due to the way the word is used by and the policies espoused by most "liberals" (though to be honest supporting the entire Bill of Rights should be a liberal position) I am a proud kossak who works regularly trying educate my fellow leftists.

There are a lot more pro RKBA left wingers than most seem to realize. Every thread about gun control on Kos tends to get beaten down with evidence from a good number of other kossaks.

Of course there are the rabid antis also but they tend to be outnumbered by the combined gun owners and those who even though they personally don't like or own, believe as I do that the Bill of Rights was implemented for good cause and all should be defended.

That's my biggest beef with the ACLU is they ignore abuses of the 2nd.

This incident has some heads exploding as the gentleman in question was black and seems to be on the reform side of the health care debate.

/politics :)

[razorback2003]

I would bet this guy was a LONG WAYS from the president and could have in no way been a threat to the president or his immediate travel group. The president's car may have even pulled up inside this convention center...so no exposure from the outside...who knows. The secret service and other agencies are doing an excellant job. There is no need for creating 'gun free circles' around the president because there is already a gun free area when you go into a convention center where the president speaks. You consent yourself to search/emptying pockets by entering XYZ Convention Center to hear Obama speak....not by being on say the public street. I wouldn't personally protest on the street with a rifle in plain view...but hey if it is legal...and the guy is not within the screened convention center...who cares??? It is no different than a business or home owner having a rifle in his home across the street from the convention center.

There are honestly no telling how many legally and illegally concealed handguns and other weapons concealed at those type of outdoor protests that none of the reporters get to see....at least you know what is being openly carried. The police agencies are watching more than just the guys with the AR's who are protesting...they watch everything. Someone who wants to do evil intent will not be protesting...I trust secret service snipers have all these events covered inside the buildings and out.

[fireman 9731]

Seems to be a recurring theme here... people bringing guns to political events.

Its at least the second time in a few weeks.

Maybe a trend is starting, If people start doing this all the time then hopefully people will see our side of things.

[Reid73]

Many Americans used to carry guns in public, and it was not a reason for panic.True: about 120 years ago. Things have progressed since then. We now have electricity, flush toilets, and law and order.

By normalizing gun ownership and the carrying of firearms again -- as it was for most of our history -- we can return to this.Does any sane person really want to return to the 'Wild Wild West' and daily gunfights?

[nalioth]

assault rifle
automatic rifle

C'mon folks. We should know better than this.

Does any sane person really want to return to the 'Wild Wild West' and daily gunfights?
I think you've been watching too much television.

The "wild wild west" was pretty boring, in reality.

[Cosmoline]

I wonder if he carries his AR to the grocery store or Wal Mart. I seriously doubt it.

I've carried into grocery stores many times. Never had a problem. Sometimes if my hands are full I will deposit it behind the counter.

[nwilliams]

Quote:
assault rifle
Quote:
automatic rifle
C'mon folks. We should know better than this.

Of course we do. The problem is that the anti's don't.

I think the majority of people going to an Obama rally are not going to be very gun friendly unless they are there to protest. So that means that the majority of the people there are going to see a guy with an AR and automatically think "assault rifle" or "machine gun" and attach a negative connotation to what they see, even if the guy doesn't do anything but stand there.

[Tommygunn]

Does any sane person really want to return to the 'Wild Wild West' and daily gunfights?


You've been watching too many reruns of "Gunsmoke." In the real west there really weren't very many gunfights -- and there was never any "showdowns" at twelve noon. Comparing Dodge City's most violent era, to the average number of murders in Washington D.C. every year tends to dispel many TV borne myths ....

[Lone_Gunman]

You have carried an AR into the grocery store?

[ArmedBear]

You seem to be getting hyped up about this guy without knowing his proximity to the President. In contrast, I need a bit more information.

Nope.

I was responding to all the people here whose instant response was to condemn him.

If you need more information about how far he was from the President, perhaps you can find that out. Again, Google is readily available.

Didn't see you asking that question before, anyway. Not one of your posts seems to follow the previous one.

You want to condemn someone who carries, whether or not you're making any sense. That's your right. But it is what it is.

[21bubba]

Anybody stopped and thought that this might be stunt by the anti's to stir the pot so to speak? Two guys, two weeks, makes me wonder.

[CoRoMo]

Many Americans used to carry guns in public, and it was not a reason for panic.
Posted by Reid73
True: about 120 years ago. Things have progressed retrogressed since then.

Fixed it for you.

[Cougfan2]

huffpo sucks but as one of them left libertarians

I specifically chose the word Leftist rather than liberal because I lean more libertarian myself. Didn't wish to offend, but I guess you and I define Leftist differently.

At least we can probably agree on what the definition of "is" is. :D

[rbernie]

Let's recall that there was little-to-no gun control prior to 1968. So who wants to take a swing at defending the notion that gun control has ANYTHING to do with Presidential security (or anything else in this thread), when more Presidents have been shot in the forty one years since 1968 than were shot in the preceding forty one years?

[ArmedBear]

Does any sane person really want to return to the 'Wild Wild West' and daily gunfights?

That's a myth. There weren't daily gunfights. I like Sergio Leone as much as anyone, but learn some history.

Sarah Brady equates carrying firearms with "daily gunfights". Of course, this is not the case, since in many places, people do carry everywhere and daily, without the gunfights in question, right now, in 2009.

Why do you repeat Brady Bunch propaganda? Where's the critical thinking here?

[JWF III]

The fact is that there is a buffer zone within which the Secret Service is going to shoot you (or take you out somehow) if you're open carrying a gun.

I've little doubt that if he got to any point within 1000 yards and a clear line of fire, the SS would have ventilated him.

And ya'll have proof of this? How?

Sure he was being watched. But a rifle, whether it was an AR or a Red-Ryder, slung over the shoulder is no threat.

If the SS had shot this man, 500 yards from the pres. with the gun slung over his shoulder, there would be extreme legal ramifications. That's called murder, anyway you cut it.

Ya'lls attitudes suggest that if this guy had been a mile away, with a Barrett, aimed towards the pres., he wouldn't have been a threat. The SS is a highly trained organization. They know how to spot a threat that is worth dealing with. A gun over the shoulder might raise them to condition yellow. And warrant attention. It in no way warrants murder.

Wyman

[jakemccoy]

You want to condemn someone who carries, whether or not you're making any sense. That's your right. But it is what it is.

Being that several people agree with me, I guess I make sense to those people. Or maybe we're dumb, and you're the smart one.

Didn't see you asking that question before, anyway. Not one of your posts seems to follow the previous one.

Your posts don't follow your previous posts either. Hey, we have something in common.

[bababooey32]

Wouldn't want someone to force the government's hand WRT our rights, would we?...Just get in the back of the bus, and shut up. That's the ticket.


1) Comparing this guy's actions to those of Rosa Parks is...well...not a good comparison.

2) Nobody's rights were violated, so why do we need to force the government's hand? This showboater was not trying to force the government's hand inorder to preserve some right that is being taken away. He was trying to force the secret service's hand in order to promote himself and rail against something that hasn't happened yet (an attack on our RKBA by Obama). If obama or his admin had made some attempt to suppress our 2A rights, this might make sense.

Protecting your rights by actiong like a 2-year old is not The High Road, nor is it effective. The most effective way for us to PRESERVE our RKBA is to act responsibly, respectfully and intelligently. If the need should arise to have to REGAIN our RKBA, then more "in your face" tactics might be needed. But that time is not yet here. IMHO.

[meytind]

I think what this guy did is a positive thing with regards to the RKBA. He showed all those people, including left-leaning CNN that being armed doesn't mean that you're a homicidal maniac and that you are perfectly capable of interacting with the rest of society in a peaceful manner.

To be honest, I think that this guy was less of a danger to the President than any of the guys who weren't openly armed. The fact that his weapon was in the open means that he had a lot of secret service attention focused on him. Had he raised the rifle in anything resembling a threatening manner, he would have been quickly shot and stopped. The guys in jackets could have easily been concealing explosive "suicide-vests" and could have detonated themselves once coming within range of the President.

[JWF III]

If the need should arise to have to REGAIN our RKBA,

If you have to regain it, that means you lost it. How are you going to show more force when you have zero?

Wyman

[ArmedBear]

There are essentially two kinds of threats to a President's life.

The first is a crazy guy like John Hinckley, Jr. (the guy who shot Reagan to get the attention of Jodie Foster).

The other is a well-planned assassination attempt from some organized enemy (could be foreign or domestic).

I sincerely doubt that, in 2009, the latter would be done with a small-caliber rifle, or any rifle.

The former is a different story, but any of thousands of people could have been Hinckleys with pistols in their pockets. The Secret Service is well aware of, and I'd presume has plans for how to deal with, these threats.

Our job, as RKBA advocates, is to show that 99% of gun owners and carriers are NOT John Hinckley Jr. types, and in fact would probably use our guns to help STOP such an act if we could.

Is this guy's way, the best way to show this? I don't know. I'm not a PR consultant.

However, I do know that instantly condemning him and spewing Bradyesque references to "the Wild West" in the context of legal carrying of firearms, is wrong. Dead wrong.

[jakemccoy]

Let's recall that there was little-to-no gun control prior to 1968. So who wants to take a swing at defending the notion that gun control has ANYTHING to do with Presidential security (or anything else in this thread), when more Presidents have been shot in the forty one years since 1968 than were shot in the preceding forty one years?

Much of the gun control of 1968 were a result of the actions of the Black Panthers and other racial tensions. That gun control was largely meant to control the blacks, but it turns out that the gun control of 1968 controls all law abiding citizens. The Black Panthers were known to show up at political events with long guns and do nothing with their long guns. They were making a silent statement that was louder than any words could make. I don't know about you, but in the grand scheme of things that someone can do with a long gun, I see the similarities between the actions of the Black Panthers and the man in this case.

[TexasRifleman]

Our job, as RKBA advocates, is to show that 99% of gun owners and carriers are NOT John Hinckley Jr. types, and in fact would probably use our guns to help STOP such an act if we could.

Just shows how effective the Brady Bunch and the lamestream media have been at demonizing firearms when "pro gun" people on THR react like I've seen in this thread.

ArmedBear is on the spot here with this. Most of us, even if we completely disagree with everything Obama stands for, would take up arms in his defense in a heartbeat if need be simply because it would be the right thing to do. Gun owners are not enemies of the state, terrorists, or "fringe" citizens..

Yet all we hear about is the negative side of gun ownership when someone takes one out in public.

I expect that from NPR or MSNBC, but it's sad to see it here.

[scndactive]

I believe if all gun owners had the clout this guy has we wouldn't have a mountain of asinine gun laws in the books

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the President at all times.

We can have all kinds of fun with this one.:D

Correct me if I am wrong. If I am understanding this statement correctly you believe guns should not be around the president because he is a potential target. For whatever reason their may be someone with a gun that wishes to do harm to him.

This is correct, no?

Well if that statement makes sense then so do these:

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the children at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the women at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the clergy at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the officers of law enforcement at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around judges at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the wealthy at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around any one that may have pissed someone off at all times.

I could keep going but I think you get the point.

That kind of knee jerk thinking is what got us all the stupid gun law we have.

We have all seen how well ''gun free zones'' have worked in the past.:rolleyes:

[Erik M]

I'm hoping that we have a town hall in this region soon. My brothers and myself will attend and will open carry.

[jakemccoy]

Here's the big hypocrisy that's getting lost in the thread: We're discussing this case as if the man is within a range to the President that actually matters. The man with the gun probably knows he's way outside the range. Meanwhile, he also probably knows that the media will report the story as if the guy is right there near the Presidential motorcade. The guy is making a statement, sorta, but not really.

[Reid73]

Our job, as RKBA advocates, is to show that 99% of gun owners and carriers are NOT John Hinckley Jr. types, and in fact would probably use our guns to help STOP such an act if we could.I am by nature pro-gun. I don't like handgun prohibitions or similar political gestures, which do nothing to stop crime and target law-abiding citizens. But when people are openly carrying (presumably loaded) guns in urban setting, well that is going way too far for me.

If nothing else, these fellows packing heat at presidential events are splitting the pro-gun movement and forcing people like me to find common cause with the anti-gun movement. As a RKBA advocate, do you consider that to be a good thing?

[geophysicishooter]

Still no reply to the question of whether or not it is permissible to carry (open or concealed) at a political rally..

I was generally under the impression that to do so was a no-no..

comments?

[BushyGuy]

damn wish i can do that here in PA! i own an assault rifle too !

[jakemccoy]

Still no reply to the question of whether or not it is permissible to carry (open or concealed) at a political rally..

I was generally under the impression that to do so was a no-no..

comments?

That law depends on the state. Also, I'm sure particular federal laws apply to the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

Also, define "political rally". Where is the boundary between political rally territory and non-political rally territory? Surely, the boundary stops somewhere. Also, is this guy technically within that boundary? I don't know.

[jimmyraythomason]

This thread is like a train wreck. I don't want to keep looking but I just can't help it.

[dieselkanic]

Not so sure about the last part of your sentence. In my lifetime, three presidents have been the target of assassination attempts--one died, one almost died, and the other escaped unharmed. The assassination of a president is a cataclysmic event that strikes at the very heart of democracy, and we should be very careful about evoking memories of those horrible acts.

I don't particularly like our current Prez, but the fact remains that the carrying of a semi-automatic rifle at a presidential event conjures up a lot of bad images and memories, even for a right-leaning gun aficianado like me.

You may not think so and many others here may agree with you, but I guarantee you, most people thinks this guy looks like a threat to the President. I'd respectfully suggest that, while we may all cherish our rights to keep and bear arms, common sense suggests that there are circumstances where openly carrying a semiautomatic rifle makes us all look like loons. This is one of them. The guy's an idiot.
I disagree...

I think it is good that he could do and did do what he did. No one got hurt which proves the ole saw a gun is just a tool. The scary "black assault rifle" didn't jump to his shoulder and start killing and maiming people.

Get real people, the antis want your guns whether you carry them or not, but every time you carry (open or concealed) and nothing happens you show them to be the liars that they are!

JMHO

[Johnny Dollar]

You want to condemn someone who carries, whether or not you're making any sense. That's your right. But it is what it is.

I have to commend you,Armed Bear.A lot of negative commentary on your positions and you are battling it out for the most part alone.
I agree with your viewpoint entirely.Very fine work on this thread which could go on for a long time.
RBernie's point:41 years prior to 1968(1927-1968)One assassinated president(JFK 1963)2 unsuccessful attempts(Truman 1950)FDR 1933,Prez elect).
(1968-2009)One wounded President(Reagan 1981,two unsuccessful attempts(Ford 1975,1976),TMK.
Historians please add or subtract.:D

This thread is like a train wreck. I don't want to keep looking but I just can't help it.

That nails it! FTW,Jimmy.

[scndactive]

there is no obvious case to be made for everyone going armed to the teeth at all times.

The only obvious case is the God given right protected by the second amendment.

What part of "shall not be infringed'' is so dadgummed hard to understand!?

rant off.

I'm out.

[dieselkanic]

As jakemccoy noted, this is exactly the sort of stunt that invites anti-gun legislation. Now that there have been two of these incidents reported in the past couple of weeks, we will likely see legislative proposals to prohibit weapons within xxx feet of the president. From there, it's easily extended to judges, legislators, you name it. All that this clown has done is to singlehandedly jeopardize all our rights. The gains we have made are extremely fragile, and this guy is creating a giant opening for the antis.

He has accomplished nothing positive.
Dis-agree.

He showed nothing bad happens JUST BECAUSE a gun was present. Pretty powerful IMHO.

Again, JMHO

[Sam1911]

But when people are openly carrying (presumably loaded) guns in urban setting, well that is going way too far for me.So now you're condemning the whole open carry movement? :eek: Or claiming that it only should apply to rural folks but not urban citizens? All folks are free. Some are just MORE free, eh?

Pathetic. Please don't take that as a personal attack on you. Just a condemnation of the way of thinking that you've expressed.

If nothing else, these fellows packing heat at presidential events are splitting the pro-gun movement and forcing people like me to find common cause with the anti-gun movement. As a RKBA advocate, do you consider that to be a good thing?
Yes I certainly do! It should be forcing folks to take a good look at the logical ends of their rights. A knee-jerk 2nd amendment supporter does little good to "the cause" if his reason wavers half-way to a logical conclusion. I'd rather have a few million supporters who really understand the RIGHT to BEAR arms than ten million who sort of appreciate the privilege to own guns most of the time if it isn't politically troublesome.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen".
I think you've all missed a very distinct possibility: This man was almost certainly standing guard against trouble -- probably an Obama supporter! He didn't say. Why are so many projecting their reasoning on to his actions?

-Sam

[rbernie]

Comparing this guy's actions to those of Rosa Parks is...well...not a good comparison.Why?

Interestingly, in both cases the debates within the civil rights community was likely the same - the 'if we just go along they'll leave us alone' crowd arguing against the actions of the 'if we get in their face and show that we're HUMAN then they can't dehumanize us any longer' folk.

Much of the gun control of 1968 were a result of the actions of the Black Panthers and other racial tensions. That gun control was largely meant to control the blacks, but it turns out that the gun control of 1968 controls all law abiding citizens. The Black Panthers were known to show up at political events with long guns and do nothing with their long guns. They were making a silent statement that was louder than any words could make. I don't know about you, but in the grand scheme of things that someone can do with a long gun, I see the similarities between the actions of the Black Panthers and the man in this case. Yes, and no.

The Black Panthers were not the STATED reason the for the GCA'68 - the shootings of Robert Kennedy and MLK were. Against that backdrop, the southern Democrats had a relatively easy go of trying to keep them uppity black folk more in line. Without the shootings of two public figures, the unstated goal of keeping the minority unarmed would have never been achieved.

More to the point - given that less than twenty percent of the US was black, the marginalization of the Black Panther's message was far easier to achieve than perhaps a similar message today would be.

In the end, this seems to come down to the same points as the last thread on this - do we encourage open carry for the purposes of making a political statement, or not?

[jakemccoy]

Not speaking to anybody in particular, unless you've actually open carried just like the guy in this case, it's really hard to believe any rallying behind this guy. It's not the NFL. You don't have to watch from the stands. You actually have the opportunity to get on the field. So, if you find yourself getting pissed and you support this guy hardcore, then go do what he did. I'll even help you track where the President is going to be.

[Prince Yamato]

Here's the other thing folks. This fellow (and the others who were carrying) at the rally are demonstrating yet another purpose of the Second Amendment- allowing the people to defend themselves against the government. This is the real deal. It is sending a very strong message to the government. Remember, the Second Amendment isn't about hunting it's about personal protection- from robbers, from rapists, and also, from the government. It is the final check in the system of checks and balances.

[PTK]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2009/08/nerdy-gun-guy-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/man-carrying-an-assault-rifle-and-pistol-outside-obama-event.php)

http://i.azcentral.com/i/sized/C/9/3/e298/j350/PHP4A897DB84A39C.jpg (http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/08/17/20090817obama-scene.html)


For those who asked. (photos link to sources)

[jimbeam]

After journeying through this intellectual discussion of armed near the POTUS is a smart thing to do or not, I think it has evolved to the old discussion of open vs. concealed carry again, with a slightly different twist. Some people state they love guns, but still can't stand to see someone open carry. Strange to me.

[General Geoff]

damn wish i can do that here in PA! i own an assault rifle too !

No laws against openly carrying long guns in Pennsylvania; just need an LTCF to do it in Philadelphia, or during a state of emergency. :)

[Lone_Gunman]

I think the controversy surrounding these events will end up with more state laws banning guns at political rallies. It is illegal to carry a gun to a political event in Georgia. In states that do not have bans, all it takes is for a few people to scare enough people into thinking the bans are a good idea.

I wonder if these patriots who are carrying to rallies are actually sleepers for the anti-2A movement, who are hoping to cause enough hand wringing and despair to prompt states to adopt tougher laws.

I do not think the average person sees these things the way the average person here does.

[jakemccoy]

My 870P would look more threatening than that black rifle, or maybe that's just me.

[jakemccoy]

A debate in on CNN right now between head of Brady and head of SAF (Alan Gottlieb).

Gottlieb doesn't agree with actions of the guy with the gun. Gottlieb is a hardcore pro-gun advocate and actively involved with defending Second Amendment rights around the country.

[smallbore]

When Obama visited NH (Portsmouth) one of our citizens legaly open carried across the street from the school (private property w/permission) where the pres held his town mtg. . .the local (only) station jumped on it. . .pd there told the reporter "he did nothing illegal & stayed within the law". The there was the other shmuck who parked his truck, with a firearm in it, and tried to get in to the mtg. He was eventually arrested. Lost his truck and gun.

[Sam1911]

I do hope this catches on. If 50 or 100 or more legally armed folks show up at every rally and political event (that they legally can) and continue to behave themselves in such an exemplary way, it will send a message that 1,000,000 NRA automated post cards, and 10 million pleading emails never will. We can wave signs 'till the cows come home, to no avail. But those silent rifles get NOTICED. Any time you agitate for change and for your freedom, you risk upsetting others. But that's a pitiful poor reason to stop fighting.

Of course, by the time this really starts to catch on, you'll notice that Obama will (for one reason or another) just happen to only have scheduled speaking engagements in Chicago, DC, NYC, Texas (ironically) and other freedom-restricted places.

In the end, this is likely to be much ado about nothing.

-Sam

[nwilliams]

This thread is like a train wreck. I don't want to keep looking but I just can't help it.
That pretty much sums it up.

I'm out....

[General Geoff]

Debate on CNN right now between head of Brady and head of SAF (Alan Gottlieb).

Gottlieb doesn't agree with actions of guy with gun. Gottlieb is hardcore pro-gun advocate and actively involved with defending Second Amendment right around the country.

Obviously not hardcore enough. It's not a debate if both sides disagree with the topic.

[doc2rn]

In before the poly tick lock

[Prince Yamato]

We'll know about laws banning carry at rallies before they pass. Believe me, they won't pass. In this current political climate, doing so would be tantamount to career suicide.

Let's look at this from an artist's perspective? Why do such an action? The answer: it makes you think. It reminds politicians that the real power lies within the hands of the people (literally and metaphorically). It reminds politicians that they cannot do whatever they please and expect everyone to take it lying down.

[jakemccoy]

Obviously not hardcore enough. It's not a debate if both sides disagree with the topic.

You have proven that you know nothing about Gottlieb.

I'll bet my house that he's more active for pro-gun rights than anybody on this forum.

[Sam1911]

The there was the other shmuck who parked his truck, with a firearm in it, and tried to get in to the mtg. He was eventually arrested. Lost his truck and gun.

What did the schmuck do wrong? Is there a law in NH about not leaving a gun in a parked vehicle?

-Sam

[Reid73]

So now you're condemning the whole open carry movement? There is no need in the 21st century to be walking around with a gun on the hip, frightening other people. That's just a desire to "play cowboys": pathetic.

Please don't take that as a personal attack on you. Just a condemnation of the way of thinking that you've expressed.

A knee-jerk 2nd amendment supporter does little good to "the cause" if his reason wavers half-way to a logical conclusion. I'd rather have a few million supporters who really understand the RIGHT to BEAR arms than ten million who sort of appreciate the privilege to own guns most of the time if it isn't politically troublesome.In a democracy, every vote counts. :uhoh:

[denfoote]

This is Arizona!!
We have been an open carry state since 14 Feb 1912.
As long as the guy was on public property or on private that has been not posted "no firearms allowed" he was completely within his right to carry a weapon.

As for carrying in a private establishment, as long as it is not posted or a bar, he can enter with a weapon!!

I've witnessed some guy carry his 500 Nitro rifle into a connivence store. I often see people carrying handguns into grocery stores.

There is no need in the 21st century to be walking around with a gun on the hip, frightening other people. That's just a desire to "play cowboys": pathetic.


The only people who become frightened are eastern snowbirds and my response is "Welcome to Arizona. Now go home!!!

[ishida]

So reid, now you're condemning and ridiculing EVERY PERSON who carries?

I don't believe you should be here. YOu obviously don't support the second amendment. You obviously don't read statistics.

[General Geoff]

You have proven that you don't know much about Gottlieb. Keep typing away...

I'm merely replying to the previous post that said he disagreed with the man who carried the slung rifle. That's entirely his right to disagree, but that does unfortunately mean he's not really debating the brady guy, if he AGREES with him that the guy shouldn't have carried his rifle there.

[jakemccoy]

I'm merely replying to the previous post that said he disagreed with the man who carried the slung rifle. That's entirely his right to disagree, but that does unfortunately mean he's not really debating the brady guy, if he AGREES with him that the guy shouldn't have carried his rifle there.

Well, obviously, you didn't see the debate. He did quite well. I would not have replaced Gottlieb with any other debater. He represents pro-gun people fantastically. Try doing research (watch the debate) before you post on the topic you're talking about. If you're style is to speak off the topic of your head and ask questions later, then let me know so that I know.

[rbernie]

Easy, fellas. This is getting close to getting personal, and we don't do that on my watch.

K?

[General Geoff]

Could you please post a link to the aforementioned debate? I'll gladly watch it, and I'll be happy to be proven wrong. I'm merely going off of what was said.

[lionking]

I am sort of torn to this.On one hand it is good publicity to show that one can have and carry and have no violence result from it,it shows you can be responsible with it.However is it good judgment?

There is perception,and what you view as a good perspective another may not and in the constant battle for upholding gun rights those that are not active like you may be, you have to think about them and how will they perceive you.What will they think about a guy with a rifle at a event with the president and the event isn't even about a 2nd amendment issue?They may think you are wrong,and you may create someone who will now support a ban.

So far we have won the battle against new gun restrictions,alot of people who aren't even into guns don't want to be restricted.However it is a fine line in the public propaganda war against the anti's,and one must think how it can be turned against them in a propaganda war before demonstrating the full rights of the 2nd amendment.

You may want it to be like the Swiss or Israel where you walk into a mall with a AR on your back and nobody thinks the worst,however America isn't those countries,yes we can legally do so in cases but on the political battle of gun rights things need to be thought out about if you are gaining trust or actually hurting the cause.

There may be open carry in Arizona but the media made it national and whether that becomes good publicity or bad we will see because a few people are going to see it in bad taste carrying to a gathering that had the president there..

[Sam1911]

There is no need in the 21st century to be walking around with a gun on the hip, frightening other people. That's just a desire to "play cowboys": pathetic.

Please don't take that as a personal attack on you. Just a condemnation of the way of thinking that you've expressed.
Oh, I don't, to be sure! I am intrigued, though. It is unusual to run into an anti-open-carry attitude here on THR of all places.

Cowboys? Frightening other people? Fascinating! So the right to bear arms is conditional based on which public place you happen to be? Or do you just feel that folks should restrict themselves though the right clearly exists?

This, probably should be meat for a different thread though. Care to start one? We could have quite a time of it! (Please do this! I can't WAIT!)

In a democracy, every vote counts. It does, but you asked if I (we...they...whichever) wanted to make folks face up to their beliefs. And yes I do. I'd hate to lose your vote, though I suspect that one way or another I wouldn't be, but I'd rather lose a few for the sake of strengthening the core.

-Sam

[Reid73]

So the right to bear arms is conditional based on which public place you happen to be? No rights are unlimited. Try insisiting on your right to open carry the next time you visit a public place like a prison, or a kindergarden, or a naval base.

[Bailey Guns]

I think this quote sums up this whole discussion quite well:

From: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/man-carrying-an-assault-rifle-and-pistol-outside-obama-event.php

Another man in Portsmouth was spotted carrying a gun in a leg holster outside the school. The unconcealed weapon was legal under New Hampshire law and he was not arrested. Later, when asked why he brought the gun, he replied, "That's not even a relevant question. The question is, why don't people bear arms these days?"

[lionking]

So far it is still legal for me to sit on a public bus bench and smoke a cig.However what if I sat next to 3 or 4 people on the bench who don't like smoke being in their face and I lit up and told them "well it is legal for me to do so and I'm making a point to show it"?

Those people on the bench might have thought before that someone has the right to smoke a cig in the open but after that stunt they might decide ban smoking on public bus benches.

[nwilliams]

Had to chime in here...

To some of the members out there (you know who you are)...

Please don't accuse other members of not supporting RKBA! We are all members of this forum because we all share the same passion for firearms. We may not all agree that the actions of this man were in the best interest of gun owners everywhere but that doesn't mean we need to start accusing each other of not being pro-gun enough:banghead:

The fact is we all are here because we support the right to gun ownership, that doesn't mean that we all have to agree on the same methods to protect that right. Some people may see what this man did as too extreme and others may see it as the right thing to do, still others may see his actions as not extreme enough. However you view it the fact remains that we are all still on the same side and nobody on here is saying that they don't support gun rights.

There's nothing wrong with a heated debate, but let's not forget that we all here because we share a passion for firearms:)

[61chalk]

This thread is on fire!!!!

I don't have a problem with this guy, law abiding American excercising his right.

But some seem scared to death about how the media, an anti's percieve this...
a law abiding American excercising his right, like it or not. I saw this kind of debate
back in the mid 80's among Hunters...Guy's were making hunting videos to sell about
bow hunting, graphic kills on deer.....many Hunters were outraged, the media an anti's would use this to destroy an outlaw hunting forever, we have to maintain a better image
in front of the anti's an media, stop making these videos...we are afraid what might happen! But other Hunters said this is what hunting is, it can eduacate people an show
what Hunting really is.....guess what.....Hunting Videos are everywhere, they are now on TV an you can watch graphic bow hunt, Hunting has become more popular..IMO...
SOOOOO...I'm not concerned about a law abiding American caring his gun as this guy did. He didn't break the law, he didn't shoot anyone, I didn't see any little kids running an screaming in terror. A guy on the news with a gun that didn't shoot anyone, I'll take that as a good P.R.

[rbernie]

So far it is still legal for me to sit on a public bus bench and smoke a cig.However what if I sat next to 3 or 4 people on the bench who don't like smoke being in their face and I lit up and told them "well it is legal for me to do so and I'm making a point to show it"?

Those people on the bench might have thought before that someone has the right to smoke a cig in the open but after that stunt they might decide ban smoking on public bus benches. There is a world of difference between blowing smoke in bystander's faces and Open Carry of a firearm. Let at least try to keep the arguments linear....

[Bailey Guns]

Your gun doesn't pollute the air others have to breathe.

A better analogy would be if you were sitting on the bench with a closed pack of cigarettes - not smoking - and the other folks had a fit because you simply had the cigarettes.

That's the reaction we're talking about here.

I applaud the guy for his courage in exercising his 1st Amend rights to making a political statement. Personally, I'm very disheartened by some of the reactions by others on this forum to what he did. No wonder "gun people" are so stigmatized in many segments of our society. Like the old saying goes: With friends like that, who needs enemies?

[lionking]

I dunno is there that much of a difference between carrying a AR-15 to a event with the president and my cigarette analogy?There will be people turned off by this,I'm just saying.

[TeamPrecisionIT]

This guy has inspired me to open carry my AR and 1911 at a rally whenever I can now. Aren't those the quint-essential American guns anyway?

Damian

[rbernie]

I dunno is there that much of a difference between carrying a AR-15 to a event with the president and my cigarette analogy?There will be people turned off by this,I'm just saying. But one involves a quantifiable 'assault', if you will - the other does not. You are equating a potential risk (person with a firearm) with an actual risk (person blowing smoke in my face).

Our job should be to AID others in critical thought - not adopting their muddled thinking...

[lionking]

quote" Personally, I'm very disheartened by some of the reactions by others on this forum to what he did. No wonder "gun people" are so stigmatized in many segments of our society. Like the old saying goes: With friends like that, who needs enemies?"

Wonderful.:rolleyes:

[Viper2]

Read about it from the guys that pulled it off.

http://www.arizonashooting.com/v3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=86525&start=20

See the pics they themselves took there on the ground.

[Impureclient]

That guy had some big ones, and I image he spent a good deal of his day in someone's crosshairs.

The adrenaline must have been coming out his ears.

[jakemccoy]

Had to chime in here...

To some of the members out there (you know who you are)...

Please don't accuse other members of not supporting RKBA! We are all members of this forum because we all share the same passion for firearms. We may not all agree that the actions of this man were in the best interest of gun owners everywhere but that doesn't mean we need to start accusing each other of not being pro-gun enough

The fact is we all are here because we support the right to gun ownership, that doesn't mean that we all have to agree on the same methods to protect that right. Some people may see what this man did as too extreme and others may see it as the right thing to do, still others may see his actions as not extreme enough. However you view it the fact remains that we are all still on the same side and nobody on here is saying that they don't support gun rights.

There's nothing wrong with a heated debate, but let's not forget that we all here because we share a passion for firearms

Yeah, it's a strange phenomenon.

Here's another scenario. Someone from the crowd reaches for the guy's gun and manages to shoot and kill another person at the rally. I'm not anti-gun if I say the guy shouldn't have brought the gun in the first place.

Some people are quick to say someone is anti-gun just because that person doesn't agree with certain legal actions with a gun. Just because something is legal doesn't mean that I automatically agree it should be done. It would have been legal for this guy with the gun to dress up in baggy jeans with his boxers showing and tattoos all over the place. I don't have to agree with that action. That doesn't make me anti-gun.

[lionking]

quote"But one involves a quantifiable 'assault', if you will - the other does not. You are equating a potential risk (person with a firearm) with an actual risk (person blowing smoke in my face).

Our job should be to AID others in critical thought - not adopting their muddled thinking... "

I understand what you are saying,however even if the guy was not a risk,he is going to be portrayed as one by some.Whether that is successful or not I don't know.

[rbernie]

Excellent link, Viper2 - thanks.

Here's another scenario. Someone from the crowd reaches for the guy's gun and manages to shoot and kill another person at the rally. And here is the crux of the anti-OC argument; the retention issue. Yes, it is the job of anyone OC'ing to be aware and actively manage weapons retention at all times.

I agree.

Not to trivialize the concern, but I think that the AR was pretty well under control.

[wvshooter]

Lot of responses here so I'll be brief. He shouldn't have had the rifle and IMHO he shouldn't have open carried a handgun. Not in the proximity of the President. And I don't say that because I like this president. I don't like him at all.

[DCortez]

I thought the guy was an Acorn plant.

[skoro]

I think most members of this forum understand the statement the gun-toting spectator in Arizona was making. Ditto the NH incident last week. But I don't think this kind of behavior does our cause any good. It wouldn't surprise me if large segments of the public sees this as irresponsible or even threatening.

Whether we like it or not, public opinion is a large factor in maintaining our 2nd amendment rights.

[lionking]

The thing is people were there because of health care.And people of both ends take their 1st amendment seriously.And some who might not have anything against the 2nd amendment are going to see that guy as trying to intimidate them trying to exercise their right to peacefully assemble.

They are going to wonder why is someone bringing a rifle who is obviously trying to make a statement to a gathering about health care and they may think that that person is trying to intimidate their stance on the issue.

[SoCalShooter]

This story s freaking awesome, we SHOULD start showing up open carry or concealed carry at these events as long as its legal in the area the event takes place. The government should be reminded peacefully from time to time that they aint the only ones who are armed.

If its just a few doing it, its bad publicity but if its 10's or hundreds of protesters legally armed at these events its sends a BIG FRicken message that we will not be TREAD on.

[Mags]

Here's another scenario. Someone from the crowd reaches for the guy's gun and manages to shoot and kill another person at the rally.

Since everyone is playing what ifs now. What if the President came under attack and the OCer came to the rescue. It goes both ways.

[jakemccoy]

And here is the crux of the anti-OC argument; the retention issue. Yes, it is the job of anyone OCing to be aware and actively manage weapons retention at all times.

I agree.

Not to trivialize the concern, but I think that the AR was pretty well under control.

It's a retention issue. It goes beyond that as well. Imagine if the scenario I described above actually happened at a Presidential rally. The debate wouldn't be simply about the legalities of what happened in the case. The fallout from such an occurrence would have far reaching ramifications to gun control laws across the country, and for what? Sometimes a cost/benefit analysis is in order. The potential risk is too great just to show, hey, I can carry and so I am. If the open carry were at somewhere else besides a Presidential rally, then the ramifications would not be so dire.

By the way, the guy said, "In America, people have the ability to fight back and resist." He also says, "I'm absolutely totally against health care in this way, in this manner. Stealing it from people, I don't think that's appropriate."

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Man-protests-President-Obamas-Phoenix-speech-with/q4OeoN6qZU-efcy1Zoq7xQ.cspx

The statement he was making with open carrying his rifle was quite a bit more than simply showing he has the right to carry. This guy was not bifurcating the issues. This guy was putting the health care debate right up there next to having the right to fight against a tyrannical government. I'm fully not agreeing with that approach with respect to these health care debates.

They are going to wonder why is someone bringing a rifle who is obviously trying to make a statement to a gathering about health care and they may think that that person is trying to intimidate their stance on the issue.

Well, listening to the guy with the gun, it actually seems like he was trying to intimidate.

[lionking]

quote

"The government should be reminded peacefully from time to time that they aint the only ones who are armed."

I agree however there is the right time and place for it,I don't think healthcare is a topic that should be showing we are armed.There are those that don't agree with you on healthcare and they have the right to voice themselves without feeling threatened.Are you showing the government you are armed or are you showing the people who disagree with you that you are armed?


__________________

[armoredman]

Who knows maybe everybody carries ARs when shopping in Arizona.
Certainly not!

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/casualfriday2.jpg

[TexasRifleman]

it's clear from the posting on the Arizona forum this was well thought out, that the local LE were informed, and a very calm person volunteered to do this.

Also, rifle not loaded just in case someone tried to take it.

Still fail to see the problem with the whole thing.

Arizona has been open carry I guess since the dawn of time.

Just another day in the heat in my opinion.......

[MJZZZ]

You should still wear your Team CZ-USA t-shirt on casual Friday. I'm shocked. :neener: Mike

[Sam1911]

No rights are unlimited. Try insisiting on your right to open carry the next time you visit a public place like a prison, or a kindergarden, or a naval base.

In many states the kindergarten would be no problem. The school zone = victim disarmament zone is not a federal law.

A prison is not a public place, you may not enter there (or leave) of your own free will and you are subject to search upon entry. A Naval base is not a public place, again you do not have the right to come and go as you please, and you may be subject to search. I don't mind answering your points, but think through them a little first as some of these non sequiturs bog down the discussion.

A more appropriate suggestion would be "try insisting on your right to open carry in a city park or on a public street." Seeing as most places do not prohibit such actions, and the laws of some jurisdictions have specifically been written to protect that right, I think I'm on pretty firm ground.

Now, (once more) are you arguing to have our laws re-written to further infringe our rights or are you merely expressing a wish that other gun-folks would circumscribe themselves?

-Sam

[FMJMIKE]

With all the threats to President Obama I think the guy is a little wacky. I do not support people carrying Assault Weapons at Political Events where the President is present............It just doesn't help anything and makes gun owners look nutty.
:(

[armoredman]

As for the question on whether or not AZ has a law restricting carry of long guns - no. Anywhere you may open carry a handgun, you may carry a long gun. Also, no specific law against carrying at any political rally. I like the fact he was well dressed and not ranting, showed a good side to lawful carry, not to mention a very nice expenisve toy, (EOTech?), I wish I could afford!

Someone wanted a picture of someone open carrying a rifle outside in AZ? Bad picture, but it's me, vZ-58, outside, in AZ, legal as church on whatever day of the week you wish.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b13/armoredman/inthefieldsmaller.jpg

FMJMike, does the rifle have a full auto capability? If not, please desist in calling it an assault rifle - it isn't.


MJZZZ, it's at the dry cleaners. ;)

[lionking]

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/17/More-guns-spotted-outside-Obama-appearance/UPI-82601250553958/

quoteIt is extremely disturbing that you have that kind of weapon in close proximity to where the president is," Ruben Gallego, a military veteran and state Democratic Party official, told the newspaper. "He was demonstrating his Second Amendment rights, but he was clearly there to intimidate people who were there exercising their First Amendment rights."

And this is the bad publicity I'm talking about.Some will see it as trying to intimidate what they think on health care and their right to voice and assemble peacefully.

While some who support these guys showing up to a rally with AR-15's to support the 2nd amendment,we may now have gained enemies who will support the next ban on them because they think they were threatened by GOP loyalists with rifles against health care reform.

[Zoogster]

Still don't agree with the action.

It may be a right, and a right I support. I also support discretion though.

The political mindset and landscape of gun supporters is probably further along in the minds of those in Arizona though.

In most of the nation I feel people should open carry, do marches open carrying and otherwise show support for exercising thier right.
Choosing to go from very little political carrying to carrying at presidential rallies is a bit excessive.

Now in Arizona open carrying may be so common and normal that they are already at the point where doing so at a presidential event is only as much of a step further as simply open carrying down a city street on a regular day many states.

The rest of the nation is not there though.
Doing too much too quickly can be more detrimental than helpful.
If people are generally not walking around with ARs in public then choosing to do so at presidential rallies before the public has had time to adjust elsewhere is excessive.

Step 1, then 2, then 3 etc Jumping to step 11 before people have become accustomed to step 2 makes it too foreign. Slightly foreign is okay and allows people to adjust. Too foreign and you may get detrimental backlash.
Backlash like the armed blacks marching during the civil rights resulting in a ban on open carrying (loaded) in places like California. Bans still in place to this day.

Do you want to achieve national laws against showing up at rallies armed and negative associations with open carry, or national acceptance and normalcy to exercising the RKBA?

[Expertowgunner]

why does it matter if this guy expressing his freedoms like any good american should is looked upon by the sheeple as a reason to have gun control. thats theyre problem and in the end i think america will unfortunately will be banned in one way or another to bear arms. i hope to god it wont but whether they tax ammo or whatever they will get it and you know why its because people dont stand up for what they believe in anymore they rather would avoid the "wrath" of the government by shutting up or sitting at their homes yelling at their tv about stuff they hate about that politicians do but never do anything. a select few of our nation would have the balls to do what this guy did and i commend that he literally was risking his life doing what he did and tried to prove a point and that point is that there are some people out there that are willing to prove that they really are americans.

[armoredman]

Someone from the crowd reaches for the guy's gun and manages to shoot and kill another person at the rally
The link from AZshooters says the rifle was unloaded for that reason. I personally don't carry an unloaded firearm, but it was there for the political statement. Also, there were several other members who were in attendance watching his 6. I still salute him, and watched the interview on ABC15, where he was polite and respectful.

[Zoogster]

why does it matter if this guy expressing his freedoms like any good american should is looked upon by the sheeple as a reason to have gun control.

It would be perfectly fine if people already normally walked around in Arizona with rifles on thier backs.
Then continuing it to a presidential rally would just be taking it one step further.

When nobody walks around with rifles on thier backs choosing to do so initially at presidential rallies is not one step further. It is 10 steps further and may accomplish the very opposite of what was intended.
Laws enacted that further restrict gun rights because something too foreign was done too quickly.

[Dr_2_B]

interesting

[ejbrush]

and scoot away to can tomatos.

I have this great image in my head - some dude standing outside a townhall in a tie-dyed shirt, with an M1 slung on his shoulder, a big sign taped to a M1905 bayonet saying "Health Care Now" or "How about We start Ensuring Domestic Tranquility and Promoting the General Welfare..." or "This Machine Kills Fascists."

Pigeon-holers around the country would have conniptions.

[Zoogster]

some dude standing outside a townhall in a tie-dyed shirt, with an M1 slung on his shoulder, a big sign taped to a M1905 bayonet saying "Health Care Now"

We had that. It was when soldiers got together and marched on DC because World War One payouts and benefits had yet to be given to them. They were essentially marching for government healthcare, and there was elements of socialism in the crowd.

The crowd was broken up with tanks, and the NFA was passed under a different pretense shortly afterwards.

[Balrog]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was at least in part passed in response to Black Panthers showing up at courthouses with rifles and pistols.

I think these people may be anti-2A activists, hoping to scare people into passing more gun laws.

[armoredman]

We had that. It was when soldiers got together and marched on DC because World War One payouts and benefits had yet to be given to them. They were essentially marching for government healthcare, and there was elements of socialism in the crowd.

The crowd was broken up with tanks, and the NFA was passed under a different pretense shortly afterwards

One huge differance, Zoogster - the Bonus Marchers were unarmed. They wanted the bonus promised for 1945 from WWI, paid out early due to the Great Depression. Unarmed and shivering, they camped out in Washington until the Army ran them off, and I believe one of the commanders one the raid was Major Geo. S. Patton.

[CredoUtIntelligam]

Probably NOT the best of threads to dive into as a new poster. However.

I Agree with the following completely:


So, you would not object to your 2nd Amendment rights being rescinded when the President is nearby?

How about your 1st Amendment rights? ....

Or your freedom of religion? ....

How about your 4th Amendment rights? ....

Why are we so quick to give up our rights? The only things I am willing to give up are those things which have no value to me. My liberty is very valuable. It is worth contending for.


What we need to understand however, is that our Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is not under attack or in jeopardy. It has been suspended, and that is where we stand right now.

We currently exist in a limbo state, vying to fully win back this most important of rights. That fact that is is currently in suspension means the political winds can blow it away completely at the slightest whim of a panicked public.

We are 100 years into a philosophical war in which we have been loosing badly. Beaten and bruised, the RKBA movement is not at a juncture where it can afford a sane man, completely within his rights, being shown in an unfavorable light on television. Now is not the time to charge forward under the delusion that being right will win us anything. We have to go forward with a practical intent to win back these rights fully and forever.

This means normalizing firearms ownership, usage, and carrying in the eyes of the public. DC vs Heller is making an absolutely monumental impact in lower courts in this regard, even as we speak.

Do not let the media frame this argument for us. This means steering clear of venues which catch the Main Stream Media's attention. The MSM cannot be convinced of the normalcy of firearms EVER. They will forever, irrespective of circumstance or public opinion, be the philosophical enemy of the 2nd Amendment. Do not throw our rights at the feet of these people.

This is the argument to make among friends, acquaintances, the curious, and the uninformed. This is the argument to silently make by open carrying where people have a chance to make up their own minds. This is not an argument that will gain ground by screaming it into the uncaring wind of the media.

[JWF III]

I think these people may be anti-2A activists, hoping to scare people into passing more gun laws.

Go to the AZS link (posted on page 6?). Several of the members there were with the AR carrier. They knew him well enough to call him by a first name (Chris). This was no anti-bs-setup. They went well beyond what they had to do by law, just to make sure nothing went wrong.

Wyman

Just to make it easy for all the nay sayers. Here's the link again...

http://www.arizonashooting.com/v3/vi...86525&start=20

[Balrog]

If they were not anti-2A activists, then they were surely misguided. I don't think the pro-gun community is going to be proud of these people when all is said and done. We had better hope there is no incident... if so, I suspect a federal ban on carrying weapons at political events would rapidly be passed given our current congressional make up.

[thorazine]

At least he appeared to be nicely dressed.

[Johnny Dollar]

it's clear from the posting on the Arizona forum this was well thought out, that the local LE were informed, and a very calm person volunteered to do this.

Also, rifle not loaded just in case someone tried to take it.

Still fail to see the problem with the whole thing.

Arizona has been open carry I guess since the dawn of time.

Just another day in the heat in my opinion.......
__________________

Another small oasis of sanity in this threads mainly anti 2A malignancy.
Is it any wonder we've been fighting this uphill battle since at least 1934?
I'm glad we've got Bear,Sam,TR,scndactive,armoredman and some others here that still understand "shall not be infringed"means just that.
But overall,pitiful and appalling.

[kilo729]

This thread really needs locked. Someone asks an outfitted mammal for verification and it turns into a stupid flamefest that brings nothing of value.

Of course this post doesn't help any, but I'm not sure how to flag an entire thread.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

By exercising his right to carry his rifle, within legal limitations, by getting on the news today he probably reminded several million people that they have a right to bear arms and no nearby kittens/young minorities were instantly vaporized in a hail of hollowpoint gunfire. I applaud him for doing what he did safely, responsibly, and without looking like a loon.

Ditto.


Its good he wasnt terminated by the Secret Service sniper who will do it with gusto. Dont be stupid, the President is ringed with the top guys whose job is to make sure he is safe and sound.

The rest of us must do that for ourselves.

I'm sure more than a few snipers had him in their scopes the entire time he was there. It's always been my understanding that the secret service doesn't smile upon people who carry guns in the presence of the president.

I'm sure they were more concerned with people carrying guns they couldn't see.

I don't think it was a publicity stunt in the sense that you mean it. I believe he was making a political statement by exercising his both his First and Second A. rights in a high-profile way. To condemn him the way I'm reading here then we may as well all give up and just go along with the program. If using our First and Second Amendment rights is as bad in this case as some of you are making it out to be, well, we may as well not have them anymore.

I see it as the more this becomes commonplace, the better.

I agree. But I question whether or not a Presidential event is the proper place to be doing that.

Quite the opposite. That's one more armed citizen who could come to the defense of the president or anyone else for that matter.

Responsible firearms usage should be showcased. E.g. target shooting, preferably with women and/or children involved. Good clean fun.

Not some guy with a scary-looking automatic rifle at a presidential event.

The guy wasn't using his semi-auto rifle or his pistol. He was simply keeping and bearing them. That is completely benign and innocuous.

Its not about protecting the President's life. It is about protecting the sanctity of the US political process. An assassin can subvert the will of the people.

Protecting the President has much more to do with preserving the Republic than protecting one man.

We've got that covered. We have a chain of succession.

Let's recall that there was little-to-no gun control prior to 1968. So who wants to take a swing at defending the notion that gun control has ANYTHING to do with Presidential security (or anything else in this thread), when more Presidents have been shot in the forty one years since 1968 than were shot in the preceding forty one years?

Excellent point. More gun control laws, less guns on the streets in law abiding hands. Less guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means criminals and assassins can ply their trade with more impunity.

He showed nothing bad happens JUST BECAUSE a gun was present. Pretty powerful IMHO.

Those of us who carry every day prove that every day.

In the end, this seems to come down to the same points as the last thread on this - do we encourage open carry for the purposes of making a political statement, or not?

Standing up for one's rights regardless of the venue does make a statement. If you consider it political, I'd have to say, "Yes, by all means!" As I've said before, we can join that wave of renewed interest in exercising and espousing our rights in the political arena now or be forced to join it on the battlefield later. I'm pleased with the apparent course on which this thread has been allowed to progress.

There is no need in the 21st century to be walking around with a gun on the hip, frightening other people. That's just a desire to "play cowboys": pathetic.

Back when the "cowboys" carried guns they weren't playing. No one is playing today, either.

There is a world of difference between blowing smoke in bystander's faces and Open Carry of a firearm. Let at least try to keep the arguments linear....

Good point. Blowing smoke in someone's face is quite offensive. The simple act of keeping and bearing an arm is completely benign and innocuous. Bailey Guns said it best:
Your gun doesn't pollute the air others have to breathe.

A better analogy would be if you were sitting on the bench with a closed pack of cigarettes - not smoking - and the other folks had a fit because you simply had the cigarettes.

That's the reaction we're talking about here.

It didn't look like the people in the crowd around him were concerned at all. That kind'a says it all!

Woody

There is a current wave of freedom being expressed in this great country of ours. We can join that wave in the political arena now or be forced to join it on the battlefield later.

[danez71]

The greatest threat to a free country is lack of self restraint.

Think about it

[jerkface11]

This is pathetic. Half of you are saying we shouldn't exercise our rights because if we do they might take them away. So what's the point in having them? What next will you be saying we shouldn't make signs saying we disagree with The Great Obama?

[SoCalShooter]

quote

"The government should be reminded peacefully from time to time that they aint the only ones who are armed."

I agree however there is the right time and place for it,I don't think healthcare is a topic that should be showing we are armed.There are those that don't agree with you on healthcare and they have the right to voice themselves without feeling threatened.Are you showing the government you are armed or are you showing the people who disagree with you that you are armed?

Granted but isnt EVERY single political event a TIME AND PLACE to voice your opinion and stand up for what you believe in.

[Eschaton]

There is no need in the 21st century to be walking around with a gun on the hip, frightening other people. That's just a desire to "play cowboys": pathetic.

But until I turn 21 and can carry concealed the only way I can carry a gun in my state is open on my hip. And I'd rather do that than no gun at all.

[lionking]

quoteAnother small oasis of sanity in this threads mainly anti 2A malignancy.
It it any wonder we've been fighting this uphill battle since at least 1934?
I'm glad we've got Bear,Sam,TR,scndactive,armoredman and some others here that still understand "shall not be infringed"means just that.
But overall,pitiful and appalling.

The 2nd amendment isn't the only right there is.But seems that is all some care about who are posting.Yes this is a gun board,but to say your way is the only way come onNow us that disagree with you are just not 2nd amendment enough for you?.Why go to a rally about health care to show off about the 2nd amendment,and that is what they did show off their AR15 at a rally about healthcare

Other people who care about other things besides a gun have the right to assemble as much as you do without feeling threatened and while you may not think they were threatened they might,and that is what matters.Those are the ones who will say yeah ban that gun I personally saw a wacko bring one to the rally.

They didn't think "oh look a guy with a gun,wow he isn't shooting anybody,he is being peaceful".They thought "wow look at that wacko with a gun,what is he trying to threaten me if I support health care?".

[SoCalShooter]

Originally Posted by Reid73
There is no need in the 21st century to be walking around with a gun on the hip, frightening other people. That's just a desire to "play cowboys": pathetic.

Whats pathetic is those who dont stand up and fight for their rights and what they believe when the system has failed miserably and does not give a rats pooty what your sign says that you hold above your head at a rally.

[2RCO]

This guy was simply practicing his 2A rights. The fact that THR members are all out of kilter because someone displayed a gun in a non violent manner as an act of protest floors me to no end. This guy wasn't menacing the President he was simply displaying his weapon in a perfectly legal manner.

Some of the comments on this board just go to show how fragmented we really are and why we will never win the 2A argument in such a state.

We need to wake up and smell the 2A coffee people either you have rights or you don't.

IMHO and in reality an automobile can be used as a deadly weapon..We don't have a fit every time someone drives a car within 500 yards of a political rally.

Reading this thread has proven that many really aren't 100% on board with the 2A but rather are lukewarm on the issue (the antis among us). Or RKBA Activists in Name Only.

From now on I will refer to the Lukewarms as RAINOs .

Thanks guys for singlehandedly weakening my beliefs that there were enough of us that cared to make a difference.

Oh and yes the President's safety is important but that is what Secret Service Sniper's are there for.

Raleigh

[lionking]

quoteGranted but isnt EVERY single political event a TIME AND PLACE to voice your opinion and stand up for what you believe in.

Then start a 2nd amendment rally.A rally that is on topic maybe.

[lionking]

quoteThis guy was simply practicing his 2A rights. The fact that THR members are all out of kilter because someone displayed a gun in a non violent manner as an act of protest floors me to no end. This guy wasn't menacing the President he was simply displaying his weapon in a perfectly legal manner.


We know he didn't threaten anybody,the point is others don't see it that way and the media will use that and spin it against us.People went to a rally about healthcare,and they saw people with guns who probably weren't in the pro health care reform side btw.

[Johnny Dollar]

The 2nd amendment isn't the only right there is.But seems that is all some care about who are posting.Yes this is a gun board,but to say your way is the only way come onNow us that disagree with you are just not 2nd amendment enough for you?.Why go to a rally about health care to show off about the 2nd amendment,and that is what they did show off their AR15 at a rally about healthcare

Other people who care about other things besides a gun have the right to assemble as much as you do without feeling threatened and while you may not think they were threatened they might,and that is what matters.Those are the ones who will say yeah ban that gun I personally saw a wacko bring one to the rally.

They didn't think "oh look a guy with a gun,wow he isn't shooting anybody,he is being peaceful".They thought "wow look at that wacko with a gun,what is he trying to threaten me if I support health care?".

As I said appalling and pathetic.
You're a walking,talking commercial for the VPC and Brady's,lionking.
Keep spouting.You'll help get more converts to right side every day.
Complete rubbish.
As Jimmy said long ago, "this is a train wreck" and people like you are Casey Jones.

[2RCO]

Lionking I don't disagree with the fact the Media will spin it against us.

There is little we can do that they won't. What we should really do is flood comment pages with logical comments on why this action was NO BIG DEAL and perfectly legal.

I'm not saying that I would have done what this guy did but then again I have nothing against him doing it. I think the fact that the media is jumping all over this shows how little people really understand about what their rights really are. We need an Educational program about the real point of the Second Amendment and how it's not about hunting Bambi and Pheasants or Target Shooting but rather as a safeguard against tyranny.

With the expansion of Government and it's power we could in likelihood one day be at a point that other peoples throughout history have seen. A point in which peoples freedoms of Speech and Religion and Right to life could be infringed. This point is when the 2A becomes possibly the most important Right of all. The ability to protect oneself from tyranny.

For now we still (no matter how much you hate the current administration) live in a time where we have rights and still have the political process. As long as we keep the 2A in full force we should never need it.

Raleigh

[sohcgt2]

I for one am tired of seeing and hearing about people showing up at presidential events armed. I think it very disrespectful of the highest post in the land and possibly the world. All Americans have the right to free speach, but it seems that many need to learn to shut up from time to time. Having the right doesn't make it right.

[lionking]

spare me Johnny Dollar:rolleyes:,stop and think outside the box for once about what others think.

Going to a health care rally to gain notice about being able to sling a AR-15 over your back is about as on topic as someone starting a thread on NASCAR on THR.

As the new restrictions roll in I'll think about Johnny Dollar who was the cause of it......

[Buddy Rabbit]

A better choice would have been with a "pro-gun" administration.

We (and that guy) ALL know that the current administration is anti-gun, and that the media is in his pocket. The media will crucify gun owners for that.

John Q. Public: - "WHAT !!! ? ? ? The current gun laws in AZ allow a gun-nut with a loaded pistol/rifle to come within spitting distance of the President ??? . . . Are you serious ???
I remember what happened to JFK !!!"

Christ. This is the last thing we need.

[2RCO]

All Americans have the right to free speach, but it seems that many need to learn to shut up from time to time. Having the right doesn't make it right.

Seriously? So we should shut up? The 2A isn't Right?

What the Heck am I living in an alternate Universe?

[jakemccoy]

rbernie,

I now see why you close this type of thread without letting it get too far.

-Jake

[lionking]

quoteLionking I don't disagree with the fact the Media will spin it against us.

There is little we can do that they won't. What we should really do is flood comment pages with logical comments on why this action was NO BIG DEAL and perfectly legal.

I'm not saying that I would have done what this guy did but then again I have nothing against him doing it. I think the fact that the media is jumping all over this shows how little people really understand about what their rights really are. We need an Educational program about the real point of the Second Amendment and how it's not about hunting Bambi and Pheasants or Target Shooting but rather as a safeguard against tyranny.

With the expansion of Government and it's power we could in likelihood one day be at a point that other peoples throughout history have seen. A point in which peoples freedoms of Speech and Religion and Right to life could be infringed. This point is when the 2A becomes possibly the most important Right of all. The ability to protect oneself from tyranny.

For now we still (no matter how much you hate the current administration) live in a time where we have no rights and still have the political process. As long as we keep the 2A in full force we should never need it.


.....................................................................


At my core I actually agree with people posting about what you said above,I'm disagreeing with the timing and tactics.Healthcare reform is a hot button topic with people passionate on both sides and nothing should dilute the issue,side tracking the issue about the 2nd amendment doesn't gain many allies.

People at a rally about healthcare and see the guy with a AR-15 have a good probability to think that he is armed to prevent healthcare being addressed,not there to champion the 2nd amendment.

[Buddy Rabbit]

NO.
You give an anti-gun President - THAT OWNS THE MEDIA - all the ammunition he needs.
Average Joe gets his news from CNN.
Average Joe gets his news from NYT.

To which side do you think his stunt will be portrayed by mainstream, nationally broadcast media ?

I hope to HELL that this guy has no kind of criminal record.

[mljdeckard]

This will ultimately be a victory. No arrest, no charges, this is a precedent that says open legal carry is not subject to harassment by federal officials simply because it might give them the willies.

This is conditioning the public to understand that bearing arms is not a crime.

[FiREhAwk]

toxic airplane air has killed more people than my AR15

[jakemccoy]

People at a rally about healthcare and see the guy with a AR-15 have a good probability to think that he is armed to prevent healthcare being addressed,not there to champion the 2nd amendment.

I heard what the guy said. He said, "In America, people have the ability to fight back and resist." He also says, "I'm absolutely totally against health care in this way, in this manner. Stealing it from people, I don't think that's appropriate."

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Man-protests-President-Obamas-Phoenix-speech-with/q4OeoN6qZU-efcy1Zoq7xQ.cspx

So, it's one of the following: (1) the guy just got zapped in from Mars and doesn't know where he is, (2) he's talking specifically about showing the government that we can physically fight back against the government on this health care bill, or (3) his adrenaline is pumping so hard that he doesn't fully know what he's saying. Any one of these reasons puts him at the bottom of the class.

[lionking]

quote"This is conditioning the public to understand that bearing arms is not a crime."


There are better ways to do so.Like I said a few people are going to take it as those that disagree with them on health care are going to try to intimidate them.They are going to see it as you using a right to bear arms to disrupt their right to the 1st amendment and that you are sending a round about threatening message to a elected administration if they don't give in to the health care debate.

[SA Town]

It's interesting to see what those who have supported this man's behavior have said.

Let me ask a question then:

What movement was this man trying to pursue that required him to stand in such a venue as he did with a semi-automatic rifle? One that says we should openly carry AR-15s in the President's vicinity just because the 2-A allows us to?

Give me a break. Have some common sense and realize that there is no practical reason this man should've carried a weapon the way he did in such a location. We don't need anyone out there in meetings looking out for the POTUS, that's what the Secret Service is for.

Why didn't he openly carry this in a place where a gun would be useful? Like a city street perhaps?

Again, this situation poses itself as just another attempt to do something machismo under the guise of "The 2-A Movement". Publicity stunts and testosterone galore. Earlier people drew analogies to this and the Wild West. While some people denounced those statements, I don't think they are off the mark.

Some people need to just sit the hell down and quit making gun-owners out there look like morons who preach about the Bill of Rights yet have no understanding of what the underlying ideas of common sense or practicality entail.

What people forget about this gun debate is that convincing your opponent to agree with your point of view means creating an argument that is both valid and sound. I haven't seen an ounce of that in this situation whatsoever.

I'm guessing that's because nowadays the only thing people care about and will rally behind is someone who has the balls to go out in public and sling their long gun on their shoulders without having any real purpose for it.

[2RCO]

Some people need to just sit the hell down and quit making gun-owners out there look like morons who preach about the Bill of Rights yet have no understanding of what the underlying ideas of common sense or practicality entail.

The guy did nothing illegal and was in no way menacing or threatening.

Maybe the Media should just sit the hell down and quit making a big deal out of nothing.

[Johnny Dollar]

spare me Johnny Dollar,stop and think outside the box for once about what others think.

Going to a health care rally to gain notice about being able to sling a AR-15 over your back is about as on topic as someone starting a thread on NASCAR on THR.

As the new restrictions roll in I'll think about Johnny Dollar who was the cause of it...

Oh the pain! You sound just like my wife!Nag,nag,nag!:D She can't put up with me.

Can't wait for the new "Johnny Dollar" restrictions to be set in force.
I always wanted to be a hit on Broadway.
Sadly Florida does not allow open carry.
But once we clear the airwaves of your kind of thinking I feel the country will be a much better place.You're a fossil getting way past your time.Extinction by the next generation,hopefully.Philosophy wise,not mortally you understand!:D Don't want any misunderstanding there.No anarchy!We'll do it by ballot.
How does Mrs. lionking put up with you,BTW?

[Johnny Dollar]

rbernie,

I now see why you close this type of thread without letting it get too far.

-Jake

Right,Jake.
210 posts is not letting it get too far! :scrutiny:

[lionking]

Oh the pain! You sound just like my wife!Nag,nag,nag! She can't put up with me.

She still loves you I'm sure:D



Can't wait for the new "Johnny Dollar" restrictions to be set in force.
I always wanted to be a hit on Broadway.

hopefully it is a show that never gets a opening


But once we clear the airwaves of your kind of thinking I feel the country will be a much better place.You're a fossil getting way past your time.Extinction by the next generation,hopefully.Philosophy wise,not mortally you understand! Don't want any misunderstanding there.No anarchy!We'll do it by ballot.

I actually voted Ron Paul,the ones who are a fossil are the ones who vote party loyality no matter what,and refuse to listen to the other side to maybe have some respect for them,bringing a open gun to show it off at a healthcare rally may make some think you don't respect their right to voice their opinion on healthcare and live with the outcome,they may think you will force them to give up their rights they used at the ballot box,not very effective in getting them to support your rights is it?:cool:


How does Mrs. lionking put up with you,BTW?

like my guns and guitars,one is not enough:cool:

[Johnny Dollar]

like my guns and guitars,one is not enough

You sound like a decent guy now, none withstanding Ron Paul ,who is always the ultimate cop out of confused non pure 2A believers.

I like the guitar bit.My wife plays a great guitar(loved Les and Jimmie)so we have something in common.

We will have to agree to disagree about the actions of the focus of this thread.Be cool.
Buenas Noches.

[2RCO]

Now I want you two guys to Hug it Out! :neener:

[Mags]

If supposed "pro 2nd Ammendment" folks don't get it how the hell are the antis ever going to let up. Some of these posts are very anti and these posts are from folks who supposedly enjoy the shooting sports.

[Johnny Dollar]

Now I want you two guys to Hug it Out! :neener:

Only if you join us in a threesome! :p
Game ? :D

[scythefwd]

"Further, if he did, I believe he would be stopped, questioned and probably arrested, even if legal in Arizon"

JakeMccoy,
Don't live in AZ do you? I lived there for several years, and the cops are very aware that it is legal. Hell, most cops asked what it was on my hip and what I was shooting. Of all the cops I met, I would bet that he would have gotten questions as to make and model, how well it shoots, how reliable it was, and how he liked it(in polite conversation) instead of arrested. I had conversations with cops about what was on my hip and what was on theirs all the time in grocery stores. He might have had a problem in Phoenix or Tucson, but everywhere else is pretty much a go ahead.

"
By the way, it does matter how close. If he was within, say, 20 feet of the President, then we'd be having a different discussion..."

Nope, if he started to shoulder that weapon, he would be dead. If he kept it on the sling, around his back.... then he would probably live. As long as the SS thought he had a chance to shooting, they would act permanently and lethally. Distance is subjective of the secret service member behind the trigger and cannot be narrowed down to any arbitrary distance. I expect that even at 200y, he would be dead if he decided to move either of his weapons to an offensive position.

[Mags]

Don't live in AZ do you?
Poor fella is from California you can't even own a regular Ar 15 over there. Just shows you how how different certain areas of our great nation feels about guns in general. Arizona neighbors California and in that short distance the difference in gun laws are of that of a free country and a communist regime.

[flynlr]

The only problem I have with that guy open carrying at the event is that there was not more people doing the same thing,.
As jakemccoy noted, this is exactly the sort of stunt that invites anti-gun legislation. Now that there have been two of these incidents reported in the past couple of weeks, we will likely see legislative proposals to prohibit weapons within xxx feet of the president. From there, it's easily extended to judges, legislators, you name it. All that this clown has done is to singlehandedly jeopardize all our rights. The gains we have made are extremely fragile, and this guy is creating a giant opening for the antis.

He has accomplished nothing positive.

the biggest pile I have ever seen on this forum.

[Johnny Dollar]

the biggest pile I have ever seen on this forum.

Well,that is stretching it,but not by much!:D
You gotta go back to 12-24-02.A lot of stretching.......................................................................................!:D

[jakemccoy]

Off topic...I love my family, but some family members I can't take anywhere except the family barbecue. Anyway, carry on...

[General Geoff]

What good is a right when you're afraid to exercise it?

To those who are afraid that carrying a rifle to a political rally will somehow result in "retaliation" by Congress via legislation, I say to thee: The problem is not with the carrying of a rifle, but with the legislators who attempt to stigmatize such a practice. So instead of complaining that "he's going to ruin it for the rest of us," just write or call your congresscritters in the event that any such legislative proposal does see the light of day.

[2RCO]

Well said General!

Dollar--Think I'll have to pass on that one.

[Johnny Dollar]

What good is a right when you're afraid to exercise it?

To those who are afraid that carrying a rifle to a political rally will somehow result in "retaliation" by Congress via legislation, I say to thee: The problem is not with the carrying of a rifle, but with the legislators who attempt to stigmatize such a practice. So instead of complaining that "he's going to ruin it for the rest of us," just write or call your congresscritters in the event that any such legislative proposal does see the light of day.

This is much too sensible.It must be squashed immediately,Comrades!:rolleyes:

[TravisB]

As has been pointed out, the Black Panthers did exactly what these protesters are doing, and Governor Ronald Reagan ended up signing gun control into law as a direct result.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party):

From the beginning the Black Panther Party's focus on militancy came with a reputation for violence. They often took advantage of a California law which permitted carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun as long as it was publicly displayed and pointed at no one.[42] Carrying weapons openly and making threats against police officers, for example, chants like "The Revolution has co-ome, it's time to pick up the gu-un. Off the pigs!",[43] helped create the Panthers' reputation as a violent organization. The greater part of the reputation was earned in particular incidents such as the following.

On May 2, 1967, the California State Assembly Committee on Criminal Procedure was scheduled to convene to discuss what was known as the "Mulford Act", which would ban public displays of loaded firearms. Cleaver and Newton put together a plan to send a group of about 30 Panthers led by Seale from Oakland to Sacramento to protest the bill. The group entered the assembly carrying their weapons, an incident which was widely publicized, and which prompted police to arrest Seale and five others. The group pled guilty to misdemeanor charges of disrupting a legislative session.[45]

The call to violence then: "It's time to pick up the gun"

The call to violence today: "It's time to refresh the tree of liberty"

If one is sane, it should be assumed that Americans are not going to stand for this. What's going on right now is an extremely real threat to gun rights, not to mention an affront to democracy. The introduction of intimidating tactics using displayed weapons into political dialogue was wrong when the Panthers did it, and it's wrong now.

Don't agree? You're in the minority, and if this continues you will certainly discover that.

[rfurtkamp]

I'm glad to see this has spread outside of the NH incident last week.

Bravo.

[Johnny Dollar]

Dollar--Think I'll have to pass on that one.

I completely understand.So much nonsensical,anti-gun ,socialist,Stalinist,Leninist,Marxist,Engels rhetoric.This is so much fun!
Rosenburg,Philby,Burgess,Fuchs,Harry Gold,just so many turncoat Commies my head spins and Vertigo sets in.

And so many of these follow travelers are with us on THR.The good news is most are quickly identified and branded as such.
But not all.
Some mole like burrow beneath the surface and infiltrate from within.Isn't this exciting?From this day forward your mission(If tou choose to accept it,sound fanmililar?)is to identify these anti 2A moles and reveal them to the forum.
I hope everyone here is game!:D

[smithmax]

Regarding how close he got to the POTUS, CNN mentioned that wherever the President is that area is now a Federal Area, and firearms are not allowed there. So this guy (and the dozen others that reportedly joined him) were nowhere near Obama. There were some great quotes in the CNN Story (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html) from officials.

[jakemccoy]

As I stated earlier, Alan Gottlieb does not agree with what this guy did (even though Gottlieb recognizes it's legal). Look up Gottlieb. Not speaking to any particular person, you will sound like nothing more than an ignorant hick if you call Gottlieb anti-gun. I'm trying to help us out as a whole, really.

I have to wonder about people who have one track minds when it comes to gun issues. It seems like they want sudden gun control laws to be passed just so that they can see some chaos.

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

I have to wonder about people who have one track minds when it comes to gun issues. It seems like they want sudden gun control laws to be passed just so that they can see some chaos.

BINGO

I have seen many gun owners talk up imaginary gun confiscation schemes, assume there are conspiracies when there are not, rant and rave how the end of the world is near. I am wholeheartedly convinced that there is most definitely a group of gun owners who are not just preparing, but hoping for some kind of chaos zombie apocalypse so they can run around and fulfill their mad max fantasy.

[Johnny Dollar]

As I stated earlier, Alan Gottlieb does not agree with what this guy did (even though Gottlieb recognizes it's legal). Look up Gottlieb. You'll sound like an ignorant hick if you call Gottlieb anti-gun.

Well this Cali,ex TN expatriate is a start.Pitiful.Only 35.Can anyone help this hapless soul?
I'll call out all my resources!Including Brazil and Costa Rica.:D

[Prince Yamato]

There is no need in the 21st century to be walking around with a gun on the hip, frightening other people. That's just a desire to "play cowboys": pathetic.

It's not cowboys. It's real life. Folks, the handguns are your every day carry tools. Many people in this country are feeling like we're going to go down the tubes and quick. The economy has taken a dive and a very large number of people feel that the country is moving towards some form of totalitarianism or socialism and that if we ever reach that point, we will never recover.

Can I ask, what the hell some of you people think ARs and AKs are for? They're for more than just shooting targets at the range folks. Did some of you honestly think that everyone who asked "what gun for SHTF" was merely screwing around? Do you know why some of this is scary to some people? Because the S really is about to HTF. It's the real deal ladies and gents.

I wouldn't worry about the Secret Service accidentally shooting someone either. I have a feeling that that would a "shot heard round the world".

If there was any time and place to open carry, this is it.

[smithmax]

Prince Yamoto, carrying a weapon around is not going to do anything about our government passing laws that move us closer to "totalitarianism or socialism", that is what your phone, pen, and paper are for. And I submit that the S is nowhere near HTF, maybe if we were in Guatemala or Iran that would be a big concern, but the US is not about to break out in a revolution. When I carry it is because I am concerned about my personal safety, not for protection from a gestapo.

This guy did a good job of bringing OC into the public light in a legal manner, not everyone will agree that it was a good idea, but at some people learned that it's legal to carry a weapon in public.

[RagDog]

The girls are Israeli soldiers.

[coloradokevin]

Hmmm..... When Obama went to our jurisdiction, we were told to leave our issued long guns at home. Actually, we were told that showing up in uniform with a rifle had the potential to be instantly fatal via a Secret Service sniper. I do have some thoughts on Obama's utalization of the Secret Service, and let me just say it seems "different" from past presidents.

That guy had some big ones, and I image he spent a good deal of his day in someone's crosshairs.

"Is that a red dot on your forehead, or did you become a Hindu?"

Hmmm, I almost wonder if that is just due to variations within that administrations of local departments? When Obama was around here for the convention last year (he wasn't yet president) we were told to have our patrol rifles with us. Granted, the rifles were in the vehicle as a "just in case" thing, and weren't actually deployed during that week. I never really had any close interaction with Obama, but did spend a bit of time around Bill and Hillary (same instructions then).


More to the subject of this thread, I sure wouldn't have been the guy carrying the rifle around near that event. Put simply, if he thought he could see the president while carrying his rifle, he could also be damn sure that someone else with a rifle was seeing him "up close and personal".

[jakemccoy]

The girls are Israeli soldiers.

Well, that kind of changes the significance of the pic with respect to this thread.

[coloradokevin]

I don't know if this link has been posted yet or not, given that I didn't read all ten pages worth of posts... But, this CNN video just gives you some idea of what the media thinks about gun ownership:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCVideo

[Eschaton]

I don't know if this link has been posted yet or not, given that I didn't read all ten pages worth of posts... But, this CNN video just gives you some idea of what the media thinks about gun ownership:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...ew#cnnSTCVideo

CNN is ridiculous :p

And I don't really like how they stressed that it was Obama (woop-dee-doo) and not a different president. What was the point of that?

[jakemccoy]

Here's the debate between Alan Gottlieb and the President of the Brady Campaign:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/08/17/ldt.faceoff.gun.rights.cnn?iref=videosearch

Unfortunately, the guy at the rally puts longstanding gun advocates like Gottlieb in a tough situation. It's hard to be too supportive of stunts like this without marginalizing yourself to loon status.

[Davek1977]

Reid:
True: about 120 years ago. Things have progressed since then. We now have electricity, flush toilets, and law and order.


There is no need in the 21st century to be walking around with a gun on the hip, frightening other people. That's just a desire to "play cowboys":


Thats laughable. When was the last time you oopned a newspaper or watched the news on TV? These days, "Law and Order" is just a show that re-runs on TV, and hardly captures the spirits of today's streets. Theres nothing wrong with opne carry, and if it scares people, they are the ones with issues, and not the people who choose to carry out this practice. Freaking out abvout being shot in the mere presences of a gun makes as much sense as freaking about about being killed in a drunk driving incident every time one is in the presence of a car. We have Constitutional rights...why should we not exercise them? "Because I legally can" is the ONLY reason to cary a gun one needs.... I don't like to "play cowboy" (got enough "playing cowboy" busting my butt of the family ranch, thank you) but I do like to take care of me and mine. Part of doing so is carrying a gun. You may feel comfortable in today's world unarmed and at the mercy of a third party to protect you, but I don't. i was raised (on the family ranch "playing cowboy") to be self sufficient, and not to depend on anyone else for what you were capable of providing for yourself. I don't carry a gun to scare other people, I carry a gun because its my right as an American and my privledge as a permit holder in my state. I carry a gun because I don't know whats going to happen 5 minutes from now, and no one is here offering to watch my back. I carry a gun becasue its 4:00AM, and I'm the sole employee of this establishment right now. I carry a gun for many different reasons, but the one reason you gave was merely an assumption, and a poor one at that. Theres much more to carrying a firearm for personal defense than "playing cowboy"

[jakemccoy]

For those who want to know, this guy is not making a statement solely about the right to carry. According to the guy carrying the gun, he is carrying because of the health care issue.

The guy said, "I'm absolutely totally against health care in this way, in this manner. Stealing it from people, I don't think that's appropriate." He also says, "In America, people have the ability to fight back and resist."

http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Man-protests-President-Obamas-Phoenix-speech-with/q4OeoN6qZU-efcy1Zoq7xQ.cspx

So, actually, the guy is not bifurcating gun rights from the health car issue. He's mixing Obama's proposed health care in there with physically fighting tyranny, etc. I wonder what this guy was doing when Bush signed the Patriot Act.

[Davek1977]

So, actually, the guy is not bifurcating gun rights from the health car issue. He's mixing Obama's proposed health care in there with physically fighting tyranny, etc.

Who did he threaten? Whats wrong with making a statement that refelcts reality? An Armed populace may someday be the only thing keeping our "citizens" from being "subjects" and I don't think theres any harm in reminding people of such things from time to time, in a nonviolent manner. The very reason these town hall meetings exist is for people to express their FIRST Amendment rights. Whats wrong with a subtle reminder to those speaking out that the first amendment (along with every other) is meaningless if the citizens of our nation can't guarantee those rights if we're unarmed and subject to the whims of the govt?

[C-grunt]

Man I got in this late, but I was working all day as a cop in Phoenix Az. Stuff like this is not uncommon here in Phx. Also that guy was nowhere near the president. His speech was inside, they dont do outside speeches in Phx in August. The president would get heat stroke. LOL.

Every winter we get snowbirds who freak out about people OCing and call the police. Most of the time we dont even get dispatched.

For those saying he might get stopped or harassed by the cops, Phoenix PD is pretty darn pro gun and 2A. When Officer Atkinson was murdered an armed civilian shot his murderer leading to his arrest. The hero's weapon was taken as evidence so the Phx PD bought him a new one.

I had a friend that moved here from, I believe, Connecticut. He went to the police station to "register" his guns and gave the desk officers a good laugh.

I guess things are really different other places...... its a shame.

[peyton]

I was rolling on the floor laughing watching CNN, let me set the picture up for you. Our secretary who is on the fence about guns watches the news about the mayor getting nearly beat to death and then drum roll please, the segment about the guy with the gun at the rally. Here's the punchline, "Bet the Mayor wishes the guy with the gun was there to protect him and maybe the mayor needs to buy a gun since he can't fight for s**t". That is main stream america response to this. Old girl realized that yes guns can protect you if you have them when you need them.

[jakemccoy]

Dave, I'm just passing along info for those that want to speak with accuracy.

[armoredman]

C-Grunt, I remember that one, an off duty security guard with a Glock19, IIRC, good shoot. I was there for the NRA show no issues with any Phoenix PD, in fact, I have never been harrassed by any AZ cop about open carry or concealed carry with permit. I would like to know if there's any light you can shed on that Scottsdale incident, without violating policy. Keep rustling me up business!
This is the lead story on yahoo right now, and the story seems to be careful to avoid some buzzwords like assault rifle or machinegun, so there's SOME teeny progress.

[TexasRifleman]

For those who want to know, this guy is not making a statement solely about the right to carry. According to the guy carrying the gun, he is carrying because of the health care issue.

Dave, I'm just passing along info for those that want to speak with accuracy.

Well, if you're just really wanting to report the facts you need to read the thread over at arizonashooters, where the guy is a member.

People who were actually there are giving their comments.

Whatever you may have seen on the lamestream media is edited to get the most outrageous sound bite.

In case you missed the link back a few pages.

It's worth the read, from people who were actually there and know the guy.

http://www.arizonashooting.com/v3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=86525&st=0&sk=t&sd=a


And a pretty long video of the scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GiXzpfGhA

He uses the "I can't carry a cop around with me" line when asked why a gun....

[rbernie]

Time to move along. If it hasn't been said in 246 posts, it's not likely gonna get said any time soon.