If you were president..

Status
Not open for further replies.
The President has two basic duties -- to enforce the laws and Constitution, and to lead.

Much of leadership is simbolism. A President who openly embraces the rights in the Constitution and rejects attempts to trample on those rights is simply doing his duty. One way of upholding our most basic right is to exercise it publicly -- so definitely, I would be openly and visibly armed.
 
If I've got a gun there's a good chance I'll deploy it in an emergency rather than doing my job which is being scuttled to safety or dog-piled by the Secret Service agents.

In both cases I'm less safe with the gun than without it.
I don't know. It still sounds like the arguments the gungrabbers use.

How about, you just train me in what to do in an emergency and trust that I'll do the proper thing? I'm not about to pull out my little handgun if there are guards around me carrying subguns trying to get me to the armored limo.

You're saying the president is responsible enough to have codes to deploy nuclear weapons, but not responsible enough to know when to deploy a 45ACP?:scrutiny:
 
Yep. I must be a "gungrabber".

Good Lord, I don't want to take your toys away. I don't even want to interfere with your fantasies about being the most powerful man in the world and striding manfully around with a gun so big that you list 20 degrees to starboard.

I'm just saying that in this situation there are dozens of the most highly trained best equipped, best armed professionals in the world dedicated to keeping me alive even if they have to take bullets. I'm not going to add anything to the party with my popgun. If I have it there's a chance I'll use it in an emergency. That's my training. No matter how appropriate that would be in the life of a regular person it's their job under the circumstances, not mine. The most I could do would be interfere or stand my ground when I should be running in the middle of a swarm of guys in blue suits.

It says nothing about the President's suitability to command strategic weapons. It says everything about an amateur recognizing his limitations when he is employing the services of the best professionals and relying on their split-second judgement. If I'm at a restaurant I don't bring my own knife roll and stock pots. While I'm there it's the chef's job. I don't try to do surgery on myself with mirrors. That's what the surgeon's for. And before you ask, it doesn't mean that I don't cook at home, can't do serious first aid or don't carry as John Q. Citizen. Those aren't times when I'm paying pros to do the job.
 
I don't know. It still sounds like the arguments the gungrabbers use.

That's because it is like the arguments the gungrabbers use. It's simply an expression of their theory that the mere posession of an inanimate object (a gun) changes you from a rational human being who can assess situations and make decisions into a mindless robot who is forced to do the wrong thing.
 
No Vern. It's attempting to use the rational part of my brain instead of the brainstem and testicles. If you're President you have people who are charged with your security. Arming yourself makes the situation worse for you, not better because you have those dozens of police, Secret Service agents, troops, helicopters and toys that they optimistically hope nobody knows about for the sole purpose of keeping you safe. I don't know about you, but that isn't part of my regular life, so I carry. If it were I'd go with the best plans that the pros can come up with. That doesn't include me swaggering around with two pounds of metal on my waist just because I can, especially if it throws a spanner into their strategy for keeping me alive.
 
What's rational about the proposition that by carrying a gun, a person surrenders his mental faculties?

Presidents do things for symbolic reasons -- look at the Clinton cabinet, if you don't believe that! And a President who carries would be doing it to show his support for this oath to defend and support the Constitution.
 
Symbolism is exactly why I suggested the other measures. They have the added advantage of buttressing faith in the country and sending several different political messages at once. These include ones I wouldn't want to say aloud as President but would like the targets to understand clearly. And I don't believe anyone mentioned Clinton, Bush, Coolidge or Chester Arthur in this discussion up until now.
 
If it is your intent to engage in rational debate, I recommend you stop using language like this:
It's attempting to use the rational part of my brain instead of the brainstem and testicles.
or this:
And I don't believe anyone mentioned Clinton, Bush, Coolidge or Chester Arthur in this discussion up until now.
In a discussion of what a president might properly do, it is appropriate to look at what presidents have done in the past.
 
If you're President you have people who are charged with your security.
Agreed. I'm sure the Secret Service agents and Capitol Police are some of the best trained and disciplined LE men in the country. If I were president, I'd verify that firsthand and then if I was satisfied it was in fact true, I'd defer to their judgment and command in a crisis. A good leader lets the troops do what they're paid to do and doesn't interfere with those who know their jobs.

Arming yourself makes the situation worse for you, not better because you have those dozens of police, Secret Service agents, troops, helicopters and toys that they optimistically hope nobody knows about for the sole purpose of keeping you safe.
Here's where it falls apart. Arming yourself does not interfere with anyone's ability to defend you or help you (using poor judgment and using a weapon indiscriminately and improperly does).

One could use your argument against civilians carrying concealed weapons. Does my carrying a CCW interfere with the police doing their jobs? I say no. Only if I were to use my weapon improperly, brandishing it at the slightest provocation, trying to be a superhero crimefighter just because I'm armed, or otherwise going beyond my legal responsibility for my own self and my family, then yes we'd have a problem.

Merely having a holstered handgun, just in case plans A, B, and C fail, does not interfere with anyone except those trying to do me harm.
 
Id carry. I would get a pair of nickle plated Colt Pythons with 6 inch bbls and a custom carry rig. A Mustang 380 in and ankle holster. And just for grins a Glock 18 with a few 33 round mags.
 
I would carry the same sidearm as the Secret Service and would take training with them. I would allow them to do their job and would only draw and use my sidearm in an emergency where there was no one (or very few vs. many attackers) left to protect me. I would also be very open about the fact that I carried to encourage my fellow Americans to learn how to safely handle guns and keep (and carry where and as appropriate) their own guns, as is their proper birthright as Americans.
 
One of those full-auto beretta pistols--open carried, of course.

Or maybe do what Patton did--a DA Colt .357 mag and a SAA (he did NOT have 2x SAA's, sorry...the patton museum has his guns, i've seen 'em)--openly, of course.
 
Lead By Example

The president has an entourage and bodyguards, so it is not necessary to carry all the time.

Carry would be largely symbolic.

Pres should also be able to demonstrate skill and competence -- publicly.

As a matter of diplomacy, I'd wear a sidearm consistent with the affair of the moment and something appropriate to the environment.

There's a time and place for everything. On home soil, I'd wear something made in the U.S. and fitting for the event. It would make perfect sense to holster a 1911 when visiting the troops. As a guest at a rodeo, something in a nice SA revolver would work. Wardrobe flexibility is the key.

During visits to Russia, a Makarov that matches their president's carry piece seems only right. On that occasional tour of South America, a Taurus or Bersa -- even an FM -- might be just the thing.

Heck, a head of state ought to visit Germany and Austria, too. Hmmm, what to wear . . . ?

Visits to Great Britain would be interesting at first. Getting their PM past a case of the heebie-jeebies so he, too, would carry during a State visit could be a challenge.

I'd start a shooting tradition with the First Annual President's Open pistol match series.

That would go nicely with the First Annual President's Public Forum, in support of the First Amendment.

But, yeah, as President, I'd want to be seen carrying and shooting whenever possible.
 
Tellner:relax..breathe...in my 1st post I did say"just for fun"didn't I.....and if We were talking "rationaly"no one of us has a snowball's chance of being president.....;)
 
TonyB: No, by George! This a fantasy post, so we have to be so ultra-realistic, overly serious, and "tactical." :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
<<Me:I'd open carry a huge 44 magnum...and make all the secret service guys dress like cowboys....and all senators and congress would wear red or blue baseball caps....>>

I would have the secret service (The boys. Have to say the girls as well) wearing biker outfits riding on Harley-Davidsons’” FLSTF Fat Boy’” (Vivid Black with Tape Blue and Medium Silver Pinstripes) with “Ray-Ban” shades. Instead of having “stars and strips” played, I would have “Bad to the Bone” by George Thorogood & The Destroyers.
For the speaker… I would have her wear a strapless dress…from Ralph Lauren, if theirs budget cuts, a Barrie Pace. A .380 in her garter with high heels (real pad-lock, optional) Also, on bad hair days, it happens, no problem, she can wear, a Natural Fox Bomber Fur Hat.
I be wearing a Dolce & Gabbana 3-piece suit with a Fedora. Driving (myself) in my official vette’ster (black) with Kate Beckensale as my attaché’, love that U.K. accent.

OO! Forgot. I be packin' my S & W 500 Magnum.
 
I would carry a compact 1911 frame.

which one?

Make THEM (manufacturers) bid on the right to become "the sidearm of the president" with proceeds to charity.

Then fill out and use the event as an excuse to properly set right the personal carry rights of DC residents.... Then work on maryland.

Then tour New York and california and pick a gun rights fight at every stop, continue until sanity is restored.

Then my own version of a bully pulpit with a big stick aimed at restoring individual rights and seperating the ideas that individual rights have to be compromised excessively to get state/federal services.

But I am crazy, I mean, I don;t even mind high taxes if the return on investment in terms of services, living conditions and economic health/opportunity can "sell" the rate. We just haven't managed to get our money's worth. I mean, for all the otherwise questionable laws on personal rights and freedoms, much of the left europe DOES manage things like health care, education assistance, etc quite well. I want the best of both worlds with benefits worth the taxes AND my individual rights in terms of privacy, free speech/religion, weapons rights, property rights secured, with a tough as all heck border but sensible LEGAL immigration standard. (simple - legal immigrants are great,and typically work hard and actually appreciate the rights and opportunities of the country. illegal immigrants absolutely must be stopped, as they not only undercut domestic job markets, they reflect a dodge around the process of choosing to become a member of the country, and not just a body taking up space)

thusly, I stand no chance whatsoever of any election. :D
 
After providing a huge federal grant to revive Dornaus and Dixon, I would be carrying one of the newly produced Bren Ten's (given the "miami vice finish" accompanied with the requisite presidential seal grips) in a very nice shoulder rig a la El Paso Saddlery accompanied by either a seecamp or airweight on my ankle.

Should things get dicey, I'd have Tony Snow carry an extra suppressed Mp5 in addition to his HK submachinegun briefcase. The leader of the free world shouldn't have to lug the heavy stuff.:D

For the finishing touches, all of my bullets of the 10mm flavor would have nickel plated cases with the seal engraved on them (shameless I know). After every range session, I would police up my brass and use them for handouts to kids/supporters/charities.
 
Here's where it falls apart. Arming yourself does not interfere with anyone's ability to defend you or help you (using poor judgment and using a weapon indiscriminately and improperly does).
Forgive me, but I have to jump in here and respectfully disagree. A protective detail trains as a team and performs contact-drills as a team; it's vital that each member is aware of what the others' responsibilities are and what their actions will be in the event of a firefight.

If your protectee is going to draw his own weapon and slug it out, nobody on the details is going to know what the loose cannon is going to do or where he's going to go - and the whole plan is shot to pieces.

I've taught a few courses in my time and I mention this every time to the trainees - a bodyguard is simultaneously servant & master. Although they are serving 99.9% of the time, the time may come when a contact occurs and he/she becomes the master - and the protectee or principal has zero say in the matter.

As for me, I'd rather be Pope ;)
 
thusly, I stand no chance whatsoever of any election.

I dunno, ozwyn. Some of us would agree we've already put far worse than what you describe in the White House!

:D

(Glad the thread has lightened up, for crying out loud!)
 
I can see it now, headlines in the Washington Post.

President get busted for packing an illegal handgun in D.C. without a concealed carry permit :evil: :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top