White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events

[gc70]

It turns out that the guy who organized the Phoenix event is a supporter of the Viper Militia group.

Can you post a link so we can all read from the source?

 

[JohnKSa]

White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events

Yup, I would too if I were in his position. It's an excellent point for him to bring up down the road when he's accused of being anti-gun. He's the reasonable one who says they're within their rights (bless their little hearts ) and who obviously believes in gun rights. They're the nuts who are doing something that most people think is illegal and many people think is lunatic fringe behavior.

 

[cyclopsshooter]

*shakes head*

The quote was,

You are exactly right Geoff, it happened a few decades ago to some eastern NC land owners when a plane carrying nukes lost its load over the swamps. Imagine that the goverment taking your rights of a property owner away on your property because of their mistake.

My response was,

If a LEO responds to a domestic violence call and witnesses an assault I suppose he is constitutionally bound not to enter the premises and detain the attacker..?...

The original quote was trying to offer an analogy as to why an area of protection on personal property was bad- My comment was a smart A$$ way of saying that there are some narrow minded "feelings" going on here

 

[Mr_Rogers]

For me here is what it boils down to;
I am all in favor of a show of arms in the periphery of any political meeting, not as a threat but as an affirmation of my rights,
Equally, I am perfectly comfortable to agree to not assert my right, that right being understood, in a "sensitive" situation.

 

[davec]

At least the President didn't wet himself like Ronald Regan did when confronted with this on the capitol steps:




Ronnie couldn't sign the Mulford Act fast enough as governor of California when armed citizens protested to make a point.

 

[Eightball]

At least the President didn't wet himself like Ronald Regan did when confronted with this on the capitol steps:

I feel kinda sheepish asking this, but.....for those of us who were either not alive or too young to know about that at the time, can you potentially inform us as to what's going on there (with the "who, what, when, where, why" bit)?

ETA: I think that the guy with the AR15 was well within his rights; he obeyed the law to the letter...and that irritates the anti-gunners, in and of itself. While I'm not saying I myself would be ballsy enough to strap my AR15 to my back outside of the venue at which the POTUS was speaking, even if it WAS completely and totally legal and I was assured I would not be arrested.....at least someone knowledgeable and not some kinda nutjob was the one to do so, and answer all comers in a calm, rational, and polite manner.

I have the feeling that a lot more people learned about their rights in the few seconds hearing about that than in the several years leading up to that event.

 

[mustang_steve]

I'm very happy to hear that the administration supports that man's action, as well as encourages open carry at his functions (however I hope it's so long as they are outside the security area and being rather polite...I do agree that there needs to be some practicality to it).

However, I'm still iffy on Obama himself. His policies so far make me feel he's doing this just to distract people from the other decisions. Hopefully I'm proven wrong on that though.

 

[PTK]

I feel kinda sheepish asking this, but.....for those of us who were either not alive or too young to know about that at the time, can you potentially inform us as to what's going on there (with the "who, what, when, where, why" bit)?

More or less, open carry was hastily banned in CA to prevent Black Panthers from carrying firearms to political rallies and threatening people. It effected all, with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink exclusion for whites.

I have the feeling that a lot more people learned about their rights in the few seconds hearing about that than in the several years leading up to that event.

My favorite so far is "since guns are legal now, can you teach me to shoot?"

 

[4v50 Gary]

D*yam. Never thought I'd see a liberal politician OK something like that. He must be smarter than I thought.

 

[davec]

I feel kinda sheepish asking this, but.....for those of us who were either not alive or too young to know about that at the time, can you potentially inform us as to what's going on there (with the "who, what, when, where, why" bit)?

They're memebers of the Black Panther Party.

In the late 1960's, patriots took up arms against the tyrannous majority government (specifically that governments oppressive apparatus such as the police) parallel to a wider civil rights movement.

They were quickly beaten down through various legal tactics. Some were framed for murder, some were assassinated. Some died in direct action against the agents of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party

Specifically, in that photo they're marching on the California state house to protest the 1967 Mulford Act. That piece of legislation was a groundbreaking anti-gun measure.

It was written and signed specificity to take firearms away from the Black Panthers. However, to avoid being struck down by the Supreme Court, as written the law applied to everyone. As enacted by the local law enforcement, it only affected African Americans and other 'undesirables' much as the Jim Crow firearms legislation of the post reconstruction south operated.

Personally, I believe the Black Panther Party was the purest form of what the founders intended with the 2nd amendment. They were a citizens militia of armed men who took up arms to check abuses by the government upon their freedoms. Police misconduct and abuse and brutality was epidemic in black communities. The Panthers formed to fight those abuses. Many paid for their standing up to the agents of the government with their lives.


I'm sure others will be along shortly to denounce them as Anti-American racist communist loving cop killers.

Read as much as you can about them and draw your own conclusions.

 

[BigO01]

Preservation of the President is more important to national security and the American legal system than preservation of any one single citizen. Its just the way it is. Balrog

Michael it way past time you learned that ALL of the American politicians including the sitting President isn't a dang bit better than any other citizen as a matter of fact they all swear oaths of office that make them pubic servents and they of all people shouldn't walk around thinking and acting as if they're above the law or respective laws of the land including every single state and township where they choose to stop in at and hawk their latest and greatest ideas to gain public support for them .

If Obama or any member of his team felt threatened by the fact that a citizen in the Great state of Arizona might be legally toting a gun near where they intended to do their stump speaches then it is they who should have stayed out of Arizona !!!!

This insane idea that the Presidency is some Holier than thou institution is nothing more than a facade that needs to be brought to and end . Whether it is through assination , an accident or by completely natuaral causes such as any illness if the President or even for that matter all the politicians were to drop dead at the same time it wouldn't be long and they'ld all be replaced and the "machine" would just keep chugging along as if nothing ever happened .

Time to face facts we are all nothing but cogs in the machine and as replaceable as any part in a mass produced modern product .

 

[flynlr]

2 things, 1. The Citizen who was carrying his Sport Utility Rifle Outside the SS secure zone was well within his rights. and 2 . I need a sling for my 30lb 60" long Bohica, 50BMG
and some steroids to carry that sob for a few hours.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

Please don't flame me but I gotta give a HUGE +1 to Obama for supporting the right to bear arms. I give a lot of credit to the man for not being afraid of something that COULD be a nut with a gun and backing the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms. Bush/Cheney would have thrown you into a "free speech zone" for having the wrong sign in the air or the wrong writing on your T shirt.

 

[coloradokevin]

I agree with Mr. Rogers. An assassin takes away the rights of everyone in the country to elect a president. This outweighs the rights violated by not allowing an individual to approach the president with a gun.

Also agreed.

The one thing I don't like about internet gun forums is how far the drum-beating has to go on 2nd Ammendment issues. I fully support 2nd Ammendment rights, and I'm not going to pretend that I think Obama is a great president for gun owners. However, I don't for one minute question the need to provide a very high level of security for that man.

After all, the American president is something of an institution. The person holding that office (regardless of party affiliation) is probably the single highest priority target in the entire world. What terrorist wouldn't want to have a shot at the president of the United States? What target would possibly draw more attention? Even beyond the foreign grown terrorists, there are plenty of nut-jobs in this country who would gladly take a shot at a president if they could!

So, at the risk of being called "anti-gun", I think I'll just side with "the establishment" on this particular issue.

Oh, and I too commend the administration for not making a stink about these folks who were carrying guns outside of the protected area.

 

[bdickens]

If you really think that the Obamessiah really supports the Second Amendment, you have a hole in your head.

 

[John Parker]

"We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms,"

So the Secret Service refers to armed Americans as 'subjects' now? I thought that we were citizens!?!?!?

 

[divemedic]

I agree with Mr. Rogers. An assassin takes away the rights of everyone in the country to elect a president.

I missed this the first time around. You have no right to elect the President. Find it in the Constitution: I challenge you. You will not find it, because that right isn't there. The President is chosen by the electoral college, whose electors are chosen by the states. How the states choose electors is not specified in the COTUS. Each state could draw names from a hat if they so choose.

 

[Art Eatman]

Lots of philosophizin' and not much law.