Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NH - Man Open Carries At Obama's Speech!

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Little Wolf, Aug 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Little Wolf

    Little Wolf Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    43
    A man open carries a pistol outside an event where President Obama spoke at in Portsmouth, NH yesterday. He was carrying a sign which read,

    "It is time to water the tree of liberty."

    A reference to the famous quote by Thomas Jefferson about how liberty requires the blood of patriots and tyrants to stay alive.

    It is also nice to note that the chief of police of Portsmouth New Hampshire stood behind this man's actions, and reiterated that it was indeed his right to open carry there legally.


    The following link contains the MSNBC news clip with the footage. I would post the video in the message here but I am unaware of how to do that (feel free to do it below for me if you know how for reader convenience).

    http://gawker.com/5334956/lets-just...l-barack-obama?autoplay=true?skyline=true&s=i


    Here is the same gentleman being interviewed later, on "Hardball".

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/32378192#32378192
     
  2. Mr_Rogers

    Mr_Rogers Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2008
    Messages:
    483
    Kudos to the sheriff. The Secret Service makes its own decisions.
     
  3. CCWB

    CCWB Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2009
    Messages:
    135
    I'll watch the clips later, but he had a right to OC and have the sign. Probably a bad combo, but he didn't break the law it seems.
     
  4. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    Speaking one's mind... No problem

    Open Carry... No problem

    Carrying a sign implying its time to assassinate the present... I think that is a problem. The Secret Service will be paying him a visit for sure. I think he is walking a fine legal line here.
     
  5. tydephan

    tydephan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,142
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    It's referencing a quote from Thomas Jefferson, not Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Note the complete quote:

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    Several threads on this already in this board, and all have been locked. I expect the same for this one.
     
  6. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,056
    Location:
    United Socialist States of Obama
    Yea, I know the quote and I know it is from Jefferson. Jefferson was making that quote in reference to overthrowing the government, just like this man was. Making that quote while carrying a firearm at a presidential event is asking for trouble. If you like to play with fire, then do something like that. But I am pretty sure he is going to have some nice visits from the Secret Service.

    This is a poorly veiled threat against the president, and an utterly stupid move on his part. It does nothing to help the cause of liberty. It didn't help Ron Paul for this guy to mention him in the interview with Chris Matthews.
     
  7. 3pairs12

    3pairs12 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    1,639
    Location:
    Texas
    He handled himself pretty well on Hardball.
     
  8. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    20,557
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    Popular subject:

    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=468306
    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=468122
    http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=468233

    And that's because the threads seemed to quickly veer into the 'he's an idiot! no, he's a patriot!' back and forth arguments with no clear profit.

    And so the thread is locked.

    I have no quarrel with unlocking this if somebody can PM me with some idea of the profitability to the THR mission statement in debating the smarts of engaging in OC at political rallies (or find any other viable topic in all of this)....
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2009
  9. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    20,557
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    I have been convinced that there is some value in debating the nature of this specific OC event, since it occurred at a political rally *and* because of the way that the LEO presence reacted to it.

    So - the thread is reopened for FACT-BASED discussion of the above-mentioned topics. Name-calling or chest-beating about 'OC-vs-no-OC' in general is not gonna be welcome.
     
  10. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    He's a brave fellow! The Praetorians do not care about local law, or any law. And they will most certainly help you water some trees with your blood if you actually constitute a threat.
     
  11. Airman193SOS

    Airman193SOS Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    267
    It is enough that he exercised his rights in accordance with the law. However, while we recognize what he did as something he is entitled to do, others will not, so it is important to get past the rah-rah stuff and keep the rhetoric to a minimum.

    Again, it is enough that he exercised his rights in accordance with the law. That should be all we have to say.
     
  12. ChristopherG

    ChristopherG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,933
    Location:
    Central WA
    Wow. This is the first I've heard of this incident and I have to say I'm a little shocked. The fact that this guy exercised a combination of legal rights is not to be disputed; but the police should evaluate his actions with an eye toward the totality of the facts and circumstances.

    Does anyone dispute what the man's message really was? Regardless of the quotation's noble heritage, IN THIS CONTEXT, it was either a summons or a threat to kill the President of the United States, was it not? And a legal right exercised in the wrong context is no longer legal; examples should be easy to imagine.
     
  13. USAFRetired

    USAFRetired Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    83
    Location:
    SW Idaho
    Is this a case of "Choosing Your Battles"? or perhaps "Winning the Battle but Losing the War"?

    I believe a little more discretion could have been displayed here.

    With our newly appointed SCOTUS "Justice", we're going to have to be VERY smart in the way we wage the on-going 2A fight.
     
  14. KelVarnson

    KelVarnson Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    255
    I don't see it that way. I see it as a reminder of who is in charge, or at least who is supposed to be (The People). 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment being exercise simultaneously. That's excellent. I would have been totally comfortable standing right next to this guy.

    To assume that this is a summons or threat to the POTUS, you are essentially calling him (the President) a tyrant. Is that right?

    It took some serious guts for this guy to make this statement, and I commend him. He also did an awesome job on "Hardball".

    I've tried to think of some examples, but failed, maybe you can help me out.
     
  15. tydephan

    tydephan Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,142
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    I do not believe it to be a threat against the POTUS. The quote specifically says "patriots" AND "tyrants." Meaning, both sides are spilling blood. It is a direct reference to conflict, or "revolution," if you will. Not an assassination of just a "tyrant" or just a "patriot." Of course, that's just my take on it.

    I have no problem with what the guy did.

    Did his sign carry a thinly veiled threat? Absolutely. But it was a threat against the government in general, in my opinion. Not again President Obama. And in the end, isn't that our civic duty? To keep our government in check? We the people, and all... :D
     
  16. RobNDenver

    RobNDenver Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    273
    Actually simply having exercised his rights is not all there is to say about this story. I am a strong believer that goading law enforcement into an inevitable reaction is bad PR for the millions of responsible gun owners in the US. Seems like the local police in New Hampshire are pretty supportive of the RKBA until the law abiding citizen includes a veiled threat of violence. What then can happen is entirely predictable and offers yet another opportunity for the average citizen to discount our message as responsible gun owners.

    I feel the same way about the goth teenager who walks around in a black t-shirt with the word F**K in big block letters. The constitution gives them the right to do it, but I don't like it and it forces me to: turn away and stereotype all goth kids as jerks.

    This kind of in your face display of our rights as citizens will have no good result.
     
  17. USAFRetired

    USAFRetired Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    83
    Location:
    SW Idaho
    Quote:
    And a legal right exercised in the wrong context is no longer legal; examples should be easy to imagine.

    I've tried to think of some examples, but failed, maybe you can help me out



    Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is the classic example.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2009
  18. velojym

    velojym Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    617
    I read some of the comments on the msnbc link, and one stated that there's some natural human tendency to liberalize.

    I'll agree and disagree. Using the classic term, yes. The human race, when allowed to progress naturally, tends to evolve into more individual responsibility, hence less need for government interference and control.
    Unfortunately, as stated in another thread, Liberals have taken the term and applied it to just the opposite... complete government care/control. This, I would say, is DEVOLUTION, and not something any sane human should desire. What happened to kids wanting to grow up to be responsible adults? Seems like these people are merely wanting to extend their carefree childhood existence from the cradle to the grave, at the expense of those who still feel some responsibility to take care of ourselves (and our own families, of course).

    How can one stand like that and proudly proclaim that they'd like to see the human race devolve to a mass of helpless infants? (rhetorical question, by the way)

    Also, it oughta be obvious to all but a complete backbirth that an assassin probably won't be open-carrying and holding a sign two hours before his target arrives.
     
  19. ChristopherG

    ChristopherG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,933
    Location:
    Central WA
    Of course, "Fire". Or any use of "free speech" to intentionally disrupt a lawful assembly (goes by the name of "disorderly conduct" in my state).

    And no, I don't believe President Obama is a tyrant; but I believe this man intends to dub him one--doesn't he? And his intention is what we're interpreting. To me, any attempt to avoid seeing the threat in this man's act/message is casuistry.
     
  20. average_shooter

    average_shooter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,269
    Location:
    mn
    And it's an absolutely horrible "classic example." There is absolutely nothing that actually prevents anyone from yelling anything they want anywhere they want. The catch isn't that something becomes illegal given a certain set of circumstances when otherwise it would be legal, the catch is that you are responsible for your actions. After all, what constitutes "crowded?" One other person, two, ten, every seat in the theater full? It's too ambiguous.

    If the guy had the gun in his hand waving it around, he would be responsible for his actions. He wasn't waving it around, he didn't have his hand on it, it was just there. And there's nothing wrong with that.

    Some people saying he should have been arrested or otherwise detained/questioned officially for this display is similar to saying someone should be arrested for talking in the aforementioned theater because after all, if their mouth is moving they might just yell "fire." It may be inconvenient, or even rude, but there's no real reason for it to be illegal.
     
  21. 6-gunfun

    6-gunfun Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Messages:
    71
    Location:
    croswell,MI
    as far as i kno the police or secret service cant do a thing 2 that guy regardless of wer the presidents at as long as the guy dosnt pull that thing out of the holster he should be ok
     
  22. velojym

    velojym Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    617
    I may be a lone chicken here, but I think it'd be great if the S.S. tried to detain this guy and were arrested in turn by the local constabulary.

    Don't think it's gonna happen, though.
     
  23. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    There were two groups of armed people at that rally. The Police/Secret Service, and one lone citizen (unless we hear about some others, not known at this time). What's the big deal? Forget all that you know about other states. That was NH, and open carry is as legal as walking down the street. Apparently, no one, not even the president and his protection, have the legal right to subvert NH state law, and the RIGHTS that their citizens are entitled to. No emergency, or martial law existed, and it should be this way: benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty, and not "suspcious" or "dangerous" unless there is some "probable cause", and apparently, walking around armed, peaceably, is not suspicious or dangerous (by itself). I'm sure a Secret Service sniper had him in his sights the whole time, too. Good that neither one of them got "frisky". I applaude him (NH citizen) for exercising his rights, and defending his actions as well as he did on "Hardball". I'll bet he is now on somebody's watch list, though, for the rest of his life. For exercising his freedom, speaking his mind, all in a peaceful manner. On a list in Washington, for life. Now what part of that is RIGHT? You be the judge.........
     
  24. travellingJeff

    travellingJeff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    Messages:
    169
    I like this guy a lot. He didn't break any laws.

    As for those that think his sign was "threatening", what about those of us that would have that as our signature? We all own firearms, do we not?
     
  25. ChristopherG

    ChristopherG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,933
    Location:
    Central WA
    Yes, there is: this classic example comes from an opinion written by Oliver Wendell Holmes (i.e., the SCOTUS) in Schenck vs. US in 1919. Some speech is limited; you can't just yell anything you want anywhere you want.

    Schenck was subsequently overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

    Threats are illegal. The threat this man made inheres in the COMBINATION of several things:

    He was armed with a deadly weapon.
    He was carrying a sign indicating that tyrants need to be killed for the good of the republic.
    He was in proximity to someone he considers a tyrant.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2009
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page