NH - Man Open Carries At Obama's Speech!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm sure that I get the stinkeye from Officers of the Law plenty of times. As long as I am legal and not makin' a fuss or otherwise actually/really/I mean really disturbing the peace - I don't expect to get molested nor do I expect to be told by my freedom-loving like-minded compadres that perhaps I shouldn't drive that ugly red car after all.

Most of the time when you get the stink eye, I doubt you have the potential to subvert American democracy and change the course of history forever by assassinating a president, right?

A man with a gun, holding a sign talking about killing tyrants, with the POTUS nearby is a greater risk than you looking a little cheesy in an alley.
 
100% with lanternlad1...not with Lone Gunman. As I stated before, where is your "probable cause" to label this guy a threat? None of us on this forum ought to have a problem with a man acting in a peaceful manner, who happens to be wearing a gun (I'm assuming we all do that on occasion), when he attends a peaceful rally. I'm sure we could read ominous things into anything someone else does (I like to compare it to how the Canadians were made to look dangerous to the U.S in "Canadian Bacon"...."they walk among us!"). Somewhere along the way most of our society has lost the "freedom" to pack a gun openly WITHOUT being suspected of SOMETHING. I'm glad NH is still free, I'm glad President Obama chose to go there, and also glad this whole thing got some media attention. Thanks GOD, the man was not a Bernie Goetz. Just thought of this: What if the Secret Service didn't notice this guy at first, then thought it might be better to just monitor him after they spotted him, othewise they would have looked incompetent..........
 
It is a bad idea to let unknown strangers with guns carrying signs that are making veiled threats near the president. Unless of course you don't care whether the president is assassinated. I don't like Obama. He won. He is president. He needs to be allowed to serve his term without some third party deciding to change history.
 
Kudos to Kostric

Besides the fact that Chris Mathews was YELLING at him the whole time during the interview, I think that Kostric made one incredible point that the whole country needs to understand- If you don't exercise your rights, you will loose them.

Its that simple.

Kudos to Kostric for having the gonads to do what most of the people on here wouldn't do.
 
None of us on this forum ought to have a problem with a man acting in a peaceful manner

That is a distortion of what he was doing. A man is not acting in an unambiguously peaceful manner when he carries a large sign that says "someone should maybe kill the President who is right over there." I find all arguments so far that the sign said something other than that thoroughly unconvincing.

To stop (i.e. detain, disarm and question) this guy, you don't need probable cause--you only need reasonable suspicion, which is a markedly lower standard. I have no doubt the courts would support a deputy who happened to be the first to notice this guy and detained him.
 
If half of supposed second amendment supporters don't get it, how can we expect everyone else to?

I agree whole heartedly with that statement. God help our Country.
 
ChristopherG, if Kostric had exercised his 5th amendment rights upon being questioned, would you then arrest him? Besides exercising a bunch of rights, what do you now have on him? I used to be a cop. If I didn't have anything on a guy, I figured I'd get him another day, when he was doing something wrong. If I was worried about him, I'd watch him. That's what you do when you don't have a case.
 
to subvert American democracy

Holding a sign doesn't subvert democracy. Nor would assassinating the president. We'd still have democracy.

and change the course of history forever

Let's not presume to know too much about the future, please? The only thing I know about the future is that I'm probably going to go to work, probably going to be bored for 9 hours, and probably going to come home and eat leftovers. Assuming to know what history will be would be too much.

A man with a gun,

Irrelevant, as the gun was holstered, not being brandished or pointed. It'd be like saying anyone who carries a gun into a bank should be treated like a potential robber, or anyone who carries a gun onto a college campus should be treated like a potential mass murderer. Someone who carries a gun in proximity to the president should not automatically be considered a likely assassin, even if that person is protesting the president. Besides, assassins usually try to be sneakier than that.

holding a sign talking about killing tyrants

That's not what the sign said. Let's stick to the facts, please. Even if it did read exactly that, what can you point to to show this man considered Obama to be said tyrant? If he were holding a sign that read, "Sic semper Obammis," and if he were brandishing his firearm in a threatening manner, then I'd be with you.

Are you advocating a restriction on firearms, speech, or both....?
 
At the top of this thread, I stated:
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 I closed it.

I was convinced to reopen it, in the hopes that we could do better. Sadly, we have not.

One hundred and seven posts into this thread, we are still stuck on the question over whether some lawful acts are inappropriate simply because the visible presence of a gun IMPLIES a threat that is not present *if* the object is not visible. I see no hope that the back-n-forth bickering on something that simple will be replaced with substantive dialog any time soon.

So we're done - again, and for good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top