Protesters Carrying Rifle Outside Obama Rally

[Emma]

Try reading

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.

You really believe they'd admit to additional security? That they'd admit they believed there was a heightened threat?

Think about it.

Again

THINK about it... was this man in the crowd in front of the President? Was this man in a firing position? Was this man acting suspicious? Was this man acting outside his legal rights?

Give me a freaking break.. .live in reality, not some partisan quackery illusion

I'm not the one who claims the Secret Service didn't give a damn

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Well whoever the hell said it, made good sense.

Even if (or especially if) you were the that said it?

Immie

If I had said it, it would have had a few "ya'll's" and some choice curse words in it.

 

[Immanuel]

Well whoever the hell said it, made good sense.

Even if (or especially if) you were the that said it?

Immie

If I had said it, it would have had a few "ya'll's" and some choice curse words in it.

I figured you editted those out.

Immie

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If i carry a gun on a plane what will happen to me, if I carry a gun on any public transportation what will people think, if I carry a gun into the bank am I within my right then too. Does it not send a message hell no just places you should not be carrying a weapon.
1. Common Sense.
2. There is no freaking point to it.
3. People do stupid things.

As one goes does the flock and there is always a crazy-bastid in the flock.

Common sense of which you obviously lack. They were not in a bank or on a plane or riding public transportation. They were within their rights to be armed, what part of that do you not understand?

 

[MarcATL]

If i carry a gun on a plane what will happen to me, if I carry a gun on any public transportation what will people think, if I carry a gun into the bank am I within my right then too. Does it not send a message hell no just places you should not be carrying a weapon.
1. Common Sense.
2. There is no freaking point to it.
3. People do stupid things.

As one goes does the flock and there is always a crazy-bastid in the flock.

Common sense of which you obviously lack. They were not in a bank or on a plane or riding public transportation. They were within their rights to be armed, what part of that do you not understand?

Now I have to call you an asshole for that.

If its legal why don't they carry their guns to the bank, on public transportation and on a plane then?

Stop being so wilfully DENSE.

 

[Vanquish]

Neil Boortz, the conservative talk-show host broadcast on my local station today that people bringing guns to healthcare townhalls was thuggery. Thug = his word verbatim. He said it was like the Iraqis outside of Saddam's villas.

Nice to see cooler heads are prevailing.

 

[Gudrid]

I could see at as a reasonable protest if, say, the bills being debated involved gun restrictions. But this is just dumb. As I said, it's the boy who cried wolf.

You have something related to the "Bilderbergs" on your tag line. That puts your ability to add 2 and 2 and get 4 under extreme scrutiny.

That's a joke due to a conversation with someone on this board. You can find the conversation on my public member comments page. Perhaps you need to work on your "scrutiny" skills before trying discredit someone in such a completely lame manner.

 

[cunclusion]

If i carry a gun on a plane what will happen to me, if I carry a gun on any public transportation what will people think, if I carry a gun into the bank am I within my right then too. Does it not send a message hell no just places you should not be carrying a weapon.
1. Common Sense.
2. There is no freaking point to it.
3. People do stupid things.

As one goes does the flock and there is always a crazy-bastid in the flock.

Common sense of which you obviously lack. They were not in a bank or on a plane or riding public transportation. They were within their rights to be armed, what part of that do you not understand?

Im not talking about rights... .I am talking about common sense and the fact that they lack any when walking around with weapons. It doesnt matter if you are brandishing it or not it intimidates period. That is what I am talking about I dont care if they have their guns but carrying it in a public location such at that one is irresponsible. There are some places you should and shouldnt carry it and that is one of them.

See when you understand its not about rights at this point cause I could give a rats ass about that. But a mental understanding is what is truly needed to break it down to rights is asinine like everything else there are things you just shouldnt do.

 

[Care4all]

People that don't USE COMMON SENSE with their right to bear arms is the precise reason others want to legislate, more and more....

This is what these people have accomplished....bet my bottom dollar on that down the road, reference to this occaision will be one of the reasonings to restrict arms more....

And many wonder WHY people try to take their guns away...it's because of IDIOTS like those trying to intimidate... the liberty of others.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If i carry a gun on a plane what will happen to me, if I carry a gun on any public transportation what will people think, if I carry a gun into the bank am I within my right then too. Does it not send a message hell no just places you should not be carrying a weapon.
1. Common Sense.
2. There is no freaking point to it.
3. People do stupid things.

As one goes does the flock and there is always a crazy-bastid in the flock.

Common sense of which you obviously lack. They were not in a bank or on a plane or riding public transportation. They were within their rights to be armed, what part of that do you not understand?

Now I have to call you an asshole for that.

If its legal why don't they carry their guns to the bank, on public transportation and on a plane then?

Stop being so wilfully DENSE.

I'm not sure what the law says in Arizona, but in Texas there are some places that you can't lawfully carry a weapon including government buildings. But we're talking about what those guys did, carrying a weapon on a public street.

And why call me an asshole? Just because I defend the rights granted us by the constitution?

 

[Gudrid]

I'm referring to Washington's Address to 1st session of Congress. NOT his first inaugural address nor his first state of the union address.

Both of the speeches I handed you fit your description. As do others. You're going to have to be more specific. Washington delivered multiple Addresses to the first session of Congress.

His very first address, to the 1st session of Congress. That's where the quote in question supposedly originated.

That should be the inaugural address. I linked to that (note the date).

Washington's speeches are all transcribed and easily located online. If you put one line from the quote into Google, it should pull the speech it was in without having to know anything other than the quote. It doesn't pull any speeches of his; just sites claiming he said it and others saying he didn't. The statement is too simplistic to come from Washington anyway, in my opinion.

I think it's inarguable that the majority of the founding fathers supported the right to bear arms, and I think there's plenty of valid quotes of theirs that support that. But I think misinformation is nothing but harmful, and I think our media and the internet is full of misinformation. I think it's dragging us down as a country, and causing people to do stupid things. Like show up for basic presidential speeches having nothing to with gun control carrying guns, thinking they're making some sort of brilliant statement. It makes no one listen to anyone else, and both sides get led around by their ears by special interest groups, corrupt politicians, and anyone else with a profit or personal motive for doing so. Drives me nuts.

 

[Gudrid]

And many wonder WHY people try to take their guns away...it's because of IDIOTS like those trying to intimidate... the liberty of others.

The only legal way to deny the right to bear arms would be with a constitutional amendment. Anything else is an attempt to thwart the constitution for personal opinion, and that is far more dangerous to this country as a whole than a dozen idiots showing up at a rally with trophy guns.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

If i carry a gun on a plane what will happen to me, if I carry a gun on any public transportation what will people think, if I carry a gun into the bank am I within my right then too. Does it not send a message hell no just places you should not be carrying a weapon.
1. Common Sense.
2. There is no freaking point to it.
3. People do stupid things.

As one goes does the flock and there is always a crazy-bastid in the flock.

Common sense of which you obviously lack. They were not in a bank or on a plane or riding public transportation. They were within their rights to be armed, what part of that do you not understand?

Im not talking about rights... .I am talking about common sense and the fact that they lack any when walking around with weapons. It doesnt matter if you are brandishing it or not it intimidates period. That is what I am talking about I dont care if they have their guns but carrying it in a public location such at that one is irresponsible. There are some places you should and shouldnt carry it and that is one of them.

See when you understand its not about rights at this point cause I could give a rats ass about that. But a mental understanding is what is truly needed to break it down to rights is asinine like everything else there are things you just shouldnt do.

It may intimidate you! But it doesn't intimidate me. The fact is your opinion doesn't matter, they (for whatever reason) decided to arm themselves (which is within their rights) to go protest against a policy they obviously felt was an intrusion on their rights. Tell you what. go interview( or find interviews from) a half dozen folks at that event and see if they felt intimidated.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Both of the speeches I handed you fit your description. As do others. You're going to have to be more specific. Washington delivered multiple Addresses to the first session of Congress.

His very first address, to the 1st session of Congress. That's where the quote in question supposedly originated.

That should be the inaugural address. I linked to that (note the date).

Washington's speeches are all transcribed and easily located online. If you put one line from the quote into Google, it should pull the speech it was in without having to know anything other than the quote. It doesn't pull any speeches of his; just sites claiming he said it and others saying he didn't. The statement is too simplistic to come from Washington anyway, in my opinion.

I think it's inarguable that the majority of the founding fathers supported the right to bear arms, and I think there's plenty of valid quotes of theirs that support that. But I think misinformation is nothing but harmful, and I think our media and the internet is full of misinformation. I think it's dragging us down as a country, and causing people to do stupid things. Like show up for basic presidential speeches having nothing to with gun control carrying guns, thinking they're making some sort of brilliant statement. It makes no one listen to anyone else, and both sides get led around by their ears by special interest groups, corrupt politicians, and anyone else with a profit or personal motive for doing so. Drives me nuts.

I think they made an enormous statement.

I will agree with you on the quote we discussed.

 

[Gudrid]

Thank you. This quote I think applies better anyway.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That's really all that matters in terms of rights.

The behavior drags down the national dialogue, but it is not an excuse for calling for gun bans or questioning the the 2nd amendment. It is, however, a good reason for criticizing those particular individuals for the manner in which they chose to exercise those rights. Because while I haven't read every word of every founding father, what I have read indicates that gun ownership was something taken seriously and solemnly and meant for defense - of self and of liberty, in a literal use sense. Not for displaying like a prop for "making a statement" over every little conflict of views. And in my opinion, that's all this was about. As I said before, as far as I'm concerned, it's just stupid dick waving in this case.

 

[Care4all]

And many wonder WHY people try to take their guns away...it's because of IDIOTS like those trying to intimidate... the liberty of others.

The only legal way to deny the right to bear arms would be with a constitutional amendment. Anything else is an attempt to thwart the constitution for personal opinion, and that is far more dangerous to this country as a whole than a dozen idiots showing up at a rally with trophy guns.

i am not certain i agree....

unless you are saying the only way the federal gvt can, is through a constitutional amendment, and even then...the federal gvt CAN and HAS limited the right to bear arms time and time again of which on several occasions have been upheld, and many many states have many restrictions upon their citizenry on their right to bear arms....

and i ask, have all of these circumstances where restrictions on bearing arms put on the citizens, by their states, unconstitutional?

care

 

[Gudrid]

"Deny" and "limit" are two different words. The government has the right to regulate certain things, as with the infamous yelling-fire-in-a-theatre first amendment example. However, when certain lines are crossed, it's unconstitutional. An attempt to thwart gun ownership and call it "regulation" is transparent - and using regulation to bypass gun ownership rights will be used against free speech and other protected rights in the future if allowed to stand. But "infringed" is the key word, and it had looser connotations when the Constitution was written than it does now, as I understand. So registration could be constitutionally justified. Concealed carry permits are more than justified - there is nothing in constitution guaranteeing the right to hide a gun, merely carry out (that said, I do support concealed carry with a permit). I don't believe the complete bans on ownership, however, are justified. I don't know enough about gun types to make an informed decision about individual type bans, but generality I do think some of those have been used to thwart the constitution.

And yes, I think that states are supposed to be held to the same standards as the federal government. It's pointless to have a federal government that can't restrict free speech if every state in the union were to do so, for example.

 

[Ravi]

Turns out the guy is a Ron Paul supporter and he met with the cops before hand and was assigned some cops to, in his words, protect his rights and his gun.

 

[elvis]

If i carry a gun on a plane what will happen to me, if I carry a gun on any public transportation what will people think, if I carry a gun into the bank am I within my right then too. Does it not send a message hell no just places you should not be carrying a weapon.
1. Common Sense.
2. There is no freaking point to it.
3. People do stupid things.

As one goes does the flock and there is always a crazy-bastid in the flock.

Common sense of which you obviously lack. They were not in a bank or on a plane or riding public transportation. They were within their rights to be armed, what part of that do you not understand?

Now I have to call you an asshole for that.

If its legal why don't they carry their guns to the bank, on public transportation and on a plane then?

Stop being so wilfully DENSE.

Because it's illegal in those places and legal where the proetestor was, dumbfuck.

 

[Avatar4321]

The lunatic fringe of the right wing is getting more and more extreme...fed by the ravings of Beck, Hannity, and FoxNews

Sooner or later there will be violence.

How is saying what they've been saying for years getting more and more extreme?

There already has been violence. When union thugs beat the crap out of Conservative protestors. Where was your outrage then?