Calls for ban on guns near Obama (Homeland Security Department and the U.S.S.S.)

[swiftak]

In reference to the man in Portsmouth NH With the "unlicensed gun". GUNS ARE NOT LICENSED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.

 

[outerlimit]

Let me start by saying I think the Presidency of The United States of America is far greater than any one person and should be protected at all costs. For this reason I am opposed to using a presidential event to try and draw attention to 2A rights by openly carrying firearms to such an event. I am equally opposed to attempting to assert 1A rights by trying to speak over the President. I consider both actions to be extreamely rude and in poor taste and anyone who does this doesn't represent me.

One has nothing to do with the other. They don't equate, period.

If you prefer to be disarmed while your government masters are around, that's your business. Luckily, you don't represent me.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Tthis whole thing is a fabrication.

The guy with the rifle that got this all going was nowhere NEAR the President or a Presidential event.

He was outside the event, across the street, not even remotely close to the President.

Let's pass a law outlawing open carry of firearms on the moon while we're at it, just in case.

 

[lobo9er]

carried an AR-15 assault rifle

uneducated media spinsters

 

[Caimlas]

Love the slant on the SC Heller decision: the SC "struck down" the ban; they didn't "uphold the Constitution".

 

[tju1973]

One has nothing to do with the other. They don't equate, period.

If you prefer to be disarmed while your government masters are around, that's your business. Luckily, you don't represent me.

Agreed-- The President is and has NEVER been "above" the citizenry. If you ban guns "near" the president, then ban people near him too. I mean people can kill and do damage as good or better than a gun.

It is ones duty to practice their rights in a democracy (okay, represenative republic)-- I would be respectful of Obama as the president and a human, but if I ever had the chance to speak to him one on one, I wouldn't shy away--I would tell him that I think he is making bad decisions that are ruining our country---

 

[Mohawk]

Agreed-- The President is and has NEVER been "above" the citizenry. If you ban guns "near" the president, then ban people near him too. I mean people can kill and do damage as good or better than a gun.

It is ones duty to practice their rights in a democracy (okay, represenative republic)-- I would be respectful of Obama as the president and a human, but if I ever had the chance to speak to him one on one, I wouldn't shy away--I would tell him that I think he is making bad decisions that are ruining our country---

Would you do it with an AR15 slung on your shoulder?

 

[Cactus Jack Arizona]

Funny, I didn't know that "one" was a group.

 

[Balrog]

Tthis whole thing is a fabrication.

The guy with the rifle that got this all going was nowhere NEAR the President or a Presidential event.

This is completely true of course. If he was anywhere near the president, he would have been quickly perforated by the Secret Service.

So it raises the question as to why he did it. Supposedly it was as a protest, and to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights? But what did he really accomplish? He got a bunch of anti 2A legislators to contemplate new gun restrictions. Good job, dude!

Wasn't open carry in California banned by Ronald Reagan when the Black Panthers exercised their right to bear arms?

Agreed-- The President is and has NEVER been "above" the citizenry. If you ban guns "near" the president, then ban people near him too. I mean people can kill and do damage as good or better than a gun.

I am sure the Secret Service would love for the President to never appear before the public. It would make their job much easier. But presidents are politicians. They have to appear before the public.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So it raises the question as to why he did it. Supposedly it was as a protest, and to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights? But what did he really accomplish? He got a bunch of anti 2A legislators to contemplate new gun restrictions. Good job, dude!

You're kidding yourself if you believe this prompted legislators to take up the anti banner.

They continually contemplate new legislation. Sometimes they can talk about it, sometimes they have to be quiet. Things like this, the VA tech shooting, pretty much anything involving a gun gets pushed to the front page as a reason to start things up again.

If it wasn't this guy it would be some drive by shooting somewhere, or some accidental shooting in a house, or a cop getting shot, or just about anything else you can think of.

A silly little thing like this doesn't sway them or start the ball rolling, it just gets a few morons (mainly those that take money from Helmke's bunch) some face time on the TV.

In a week it will be something else.

The fundamentals are what matter. For the moment gun control is a dangerous topic at the Federal level and political suicide for any except the few hard core types.

It's up to all of us to keep that pressure on the legislators who would rather just stay away from the topic completely.

 

[Balrog]

You're kidding yourself if you believe this prompted legislators to take up the anti banner

You are correct. But it did give them another opportunity in the media limelight to spread their message.

 

[Quiet]

Wasn't open carry in California banned by Ronald Reagan when the Black Panthers exercised their right to bear arms?

Open carry is still kinda legal in CA.

Governor Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law, which outlawed the open carrying of loaded firearms in public places. The Mulford Act was in response to the Black Panthers open carrying firearms.

However, you can still legally open carry unloaded firearms in public places and open carry loaded firearms in non-prohibited unincorporated areas of CA.

 

[Quiet]

White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events

Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality."

Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs's comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.

"What Gibbs said is wrong," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It's crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody."

The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans' event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.

Phoenix police made no arrests, saying Arizona law allows weapons to be carried in the open.

Last week, a man with a gun strapped to his leg held a sign outside an Obama town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., that read: "It's time to water the tree of liberty."

Before the same meeting, Richard Terry Young, a New Hampshire resident, was arrested by the Secret Service for allegedly having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car. Young was stopped inside the school where Obama held the forum, having reportedly sneaked past a security perimeter.

Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a "relatively new phenomenon." But he said the president's safety is not being jeopardized.

"We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms," he said. "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered. These people weren't ticketed for events and wouldn't have been allowed inside and weren't in a position outside to offer a threat." The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said.

Lawmakers holding tense town hall debates about health-care reform also have seen armed constituents. The staff of some, including Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.), have taken precautions to guard against guns being brought into gatherings.

"We asked everyone with firearms to check them with the sheriff before we began the meeting," said Marilyn Dillihay, Cohen's chief of staff, describing an Aug. 8 town hall debate in Memphis. "We've never done that before." The decision was made because the number of people at the event and the subject of the debate created a "potentially a volatile situation," she said.

"Obviously there's a lot of emotion with health care," Dillihay said. "Feelings are very tense, and we were just trying to make sure that things were safe."

One man at the meeting disclosed that he had a firearm and complied with a request to put it in his vehicle, she said.

Other lawmakers said they intended to take no precautions in future town hall meetings or to ask the advice of local law enforcement. C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), said the congresswoman will "balance rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment and providing her constituents with a safe forum to share their views."

Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University at San Bernardino, said concern about whether Obama will enact new gun restrictions may also be contributing to the tense political climate.

"There's a lot of anger out there," Levin said.

"A key thing that's been bubbling under the surface is what's going on with President Obama and guns," he said. "There is a real question mark not only for extremists but for gun rights advocates in the mainstream."

 

[TexasRifleman]

You are correct. But it did give them another opportunity in the media limelight to spread their messag

That's the thing. They will find one or 2 every week anyway.

If we hide in the corners for fear of giving them anything,they will just take crime examples or shootings.

Put it this way, when the anti's go on TV to spout off would you rather them be talking about an incident like this, with a law abiding citizen who remained totally calm or a VA Tech incident where a nutcase shoots up the place.

Both of those incidents are used by the anti's as reasons why people shouldn't have guns.

It's incidents like this, that didn't harm anyone or anything, that can be uses to show the fallacy of their argument.

If people in general never see the law abiding side of firearm ownership, but only see the crime, which side of the fence do you think they may sway to?


The news report:
"Oh MY! Someone had a gun. The gun didn't do anything, the person didn't do anything, nothing bad happened, it was perfectly legal, the Secret Service says they didn't have a problem with it, THIS MUST BE STOPPED!"

How stupid does that make them look?

Yet, rather than take advantage of it we're sitting here arguing amongst ourselves about whether it was right or wrong that the guy did it.

 

[Balrog]

The news report:
"Oh MY! Someone had a gun. The gun didn't do anything, the person didn't do anything, nothing bad happened, it was perfectly legal, the Secret Service says they didn't have a problem with it, THIS MUST BE STOPPED!"

How stupid does that make them look?

You have more faith in the public to see the fallacy of their arguments than I do.

 

[conw]

In reference to the man in Portsmouth NH With the "unlicensed gun". GUNS ARE NOT LICENSED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.

Technically then, it IS unlicensed...:banghead:

 

[TexasRifleman]

ou have more faith in the public to see the fallacy of their arguments than I do.

No, I have no faith. I've just been watching this for years. What I have faith in is that politicians only respond to stuff that gets them TV time, votes, or money.
This one doesn't seem to offer any of those things.

Rarely does an event like this have any impact. In fact I can't think of any incident where a law abiding citizen did nothing and it wound up causing the passage of laws to keep it from happening again. Lots of talk certainly, but no one will care about this after Wednesday or so.

It's already pretty much dropped off of the media's radar screen.

 

[longdayjake]

Do I really want these nuts to have free-range inadvertently representing me before the general public? Would I trust them to get near a politician they disagreed with?

It only takes one full-blown nut to lose our 2A rights forever.

All the more reason for you and me to carry at these events to be there to deter and/or stop nut-jobs from taking our rights away. Its the same thing as disarming people in universities. It makes it easy for someone to be the only one with guns. That horrible thought is made worse when the only ones with guns is the government.

 

[divemedic]

It only takes one full-blown nut to lose our 2A rights forever.

That is just as dumb as anything I have heard an anti say. So you are telling me that someone is enough of an idiot or enough of a criminal that they cannot be trusted to have a gun near the POTUS, but that a law will stop them?

I can see it now: "I was gonna assassinate the President today, but since it is illegal to have a gun near him, I think I will just go play golf instead."

Kind of like the airheads who think banks should be off limits to CCW because someone might rob the bank.

 

[DHJenkins]

At least the secret service isn't trying to throw gun owners under the bus. They could just as easily have said that armed protestors present a danger, but instead make it pretty clear that they see nothing wrong with it.

 

[winston smith]

Perhaps, as the Anointed One rides through, we should bow, take off our caps, and tug our forelocks, as peasants are wont to do.

 

[divemedic]

Of course, now the SS is confiscating cameras and cell phones from people in Burger joints so they cannot take pictures of Obama's family.

Link here.

So why wouldn't they start banning free speech and firearms in his most exalted presence as well.

 

[2RCO]

Divemedic after reading that link I threw up in my own mouth a little. I have no problem with the SS watching over the grill, but confiscating peoples cell phones is a bit over the top. The President is still only a citizen and not above the law or better than anyone else (at least that is the way it is supposed to be). Seriously this is over the top and we need to throw a fit about it and get this BS noticed. Note this has nothing to do with a Rep vs. Dem thing. We don't have a King in this country... IMHO those citizens rights were violated. Where the heck is the ACLU. I'll start giving them money if they start defending people's rights across the board.

We need to somehow show in the next election that we will no longer tolerate those who place themselves above the people they represent.

PS: I'm not sorry for the rant this time!

It's a slippery slope to serfdom folks.. The govt. slowly starts taking away an individuals capacity to defend themself. Then a priviliged class is created to lord over those folks. Then BAM undesirables end up in camps.

Write your Congressfolks and let them know that this kind of Asshattery will no longer be tolerated and that if they don't do something they'll be finding someone else occupying their seat in the next term. These clowns work for us not the other way around!

Or you can set idle and within 10 years you'll be lucky to be able to own a cork gun.

Raleigh

 

[Corey]

I think it is obvious that the guys open carrying in AZ were doing it to get publicity. They accomplished their mission. The question now is whether it was a good idea or not and will it help us or hurt us. That is probably an argument for another thread.

 

[2RCO]

Corey - There is no doubt it was for publicity.

I probably wouldn't have picked a Healthcare forum as my venue. I'd rather see this bring Right to Carry and the 2A to the forefront than another VA Tech scenario.

At least these guys made us look good to a few people where as guns in the news generally=horrible press.

Raleigh