View Full Version : Guns at Obama's Meetings
Batteriesnare
08-17-2009, 21:01
I'm not sure how to feel about this one. Thoughts? Miss Myers doesn't know what an assault rifle is, and the Brady Campaign people should really find something worth while to do with their lives.....or perhaps why they want an unarmed socialized country.....[AR15]
Taken from: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_protesters_guns
By AMANDA LEE MYERS and TERRY TANG, Associated Press Writers – Mon Aug 17, 6:22 pm ET
PHOENIX – About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.
The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.
Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who monitored the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.
"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends."
Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.
"It's a political statement," he told The Boston Globe. "If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."
Police asked the man to move away from school property, but he was not arrested.
Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend.
"When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance," Solop said. "It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication."
He said he's never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. "The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation," he said.
Phoenix was Obama's last stop on a four-day tour of western states, including Montana and Colorado.
Authorities in Montana said they received no reports of anyone carrying firearms during Obama's health care town hall near Bozeman on Friday.
About 1,000 people both for and against Obama converged at a protest area near the Gallatin Field Airport hangar where the event took place. One person accused of disorderly conduct was detained and released, according to the Gallatin Airport Authority.
Heather Benjamin of Denver's Mesa County sheriff's department, the lead agency during Obama's visit there, said no one was arrested.
Arizona is an "open-carry" state, which means anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it's visible. Only someone carrying a concealed weapon is required to have a permit.
Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.
"To me, this is craziness," he said. "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone."
He said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening," he said.
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.
"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."
Representatives of the National Rifle Association did not return calls for comment.
Batteriesnare
08-17-2009, 21:04
Also found this:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/ynews;_ylt=ArC0z4AayV5pkfjW3GO_HG1H2ocA;_ylu=X3oDM TFhZGMwZjVzBHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bl9yXzNzbG90X3ZpZGVvBHN sawN2aWQtZWQtbGluaw--?ch=4226713&cl=15098903&lang=en
they should be allowed to exercise their rights. just because the POTUS shows up doesn't mean those rights disappear.
I am glad the police did the right thing.
no one got hurt, no one got arrested. I don't see any big deal.
Batteriesnare
08-17-2009, 21:41
I agree they should be allowed to exercise their rights, and I'm glad they did. Unfortunately I read and posted the article before I saw the video of the gentleman. The only thing that worries me is if it had been an unreasonable person out for blood, in which it would have brought very negative attention to our community. I'm glad the man was very level headed and confident.
rfenster
08-17-2009, 23:12
If he had been an unreasonable person who was out for blood, he certainly would not have open carried his weapon.
He was trying to make a statement, and he was successful.
MSNBC announcers and 'correspondents' were virtually crapping their pants while the 'live' video of this young man was going out on their network.
Batteriesnare
08-17-2009, 23:16
If he had been an unreasonable person who was out for blood, he certainly would not have open carried his weapon.
I know, he may have used it.
im all for the guys right to carry, but i don't think this was good judgement. these meetings have been a little heated and carrying weapons to a possibly volatile meeting might not be good judgement in my opinion. otherwise, im all for the guys right to carry wherever he wants, no matter if the president is around or not.
Good for this guy and all of the rest who were exercising their rights and staying within the law of the land!
Some times you all confuse the hell out of me. You either have the right and can exercise it or you're just a sheep in a sheepdog mask. There is nothing else here. The folks on the other side of our 2A debates want you to think that it isn't "appropriate" to exercise your rights, hey, if you want to flounder over "where and when is it appropriate" within the context of this situation.. well enjoy that, I'll have no issue reminding you that you're wrong.
You either have the right and can exercise it or you're just a sheep in a sheepdog mask. There is nothing else here. The folks on the other side of our 2A debates want you to think that it isn't "appropriate" to exercise your rights, hey, if you want to flounder over "where and when is it appropriate" within the context of this situation.. well enjoy that, I'll have no issue reminding you that you're wrong.
I'm not sure I agree, I think you are confusing "rights" with "common sense". Just because you have the first amendment right to display swastikas and KKK hoods outside an NAACP convention doesn't mean it's a good idea. Here, just because the guy has a second amendment right to carry openly doesn't mean it's a good idea. I am worried this is the kind of thing that will whip up public frenzy and get Assault Weapon Ban II going. California lost open carry of loaded guns that way. Some people forget that Ronald Reagan as governor signed a ban in California because the Black Panthers were doing it in Oakland and WATS.
I think we have a double edged sword here. On one hand I think it's awesome to be so brazen as to pack your AR15 to a presidential speech, nothing says F-U more than that. They have their 2nd amendment rights on display, and that is very cool.
On the other hand I see far more negatives to doing this:
The left media will label these folks as 'gun nuts', just another public image of rednecks and their weapons (or rednecks clinging to their religion and guns, that was it...)
Because of how much people SO over-react to issues, this could lead to a new gun control law that says that no weapons are allowed within 600 yards of the president (or some such thing) and make these types of folks move too far away to be noticed. That's a double whammy, because it's another gun control law and another nail in the coffin
We could find that places of public venue, such as this was, may invoke private rules about banning guns - yet one more place we cannot carry a weapon
This could be one huge "see I told you so" that prompts Obooboo, the biggest gun hater elected, to say "yup, you're right, it's time to put gun control on the menu since this is front and center in American's minds"Of course none of this may happen, but it's just some of the things that COULD happen with such an out-of-touch left looking on. One exception, however, might be if OB was talking about gun control, then the damage is done and you might as well show up in support of no more bans (but again, that could backfire even worse). Taking guns to a health care debate.....I just don't know.
im all for the guys right to carry, but i don't think this was good judgement. these meetings have been a little heated and carrying weapons to a possibly volatile meeting might not be good judgement in my opinion. otherwise, im all for the guys right to carry wherever he wants, no matter if the president is around or not.
why?
It just proves even in heated situtation americans deserve their right to own firearms and are not gun toting, shoot anything that moves crazy rednecks that can not be trusted.
We are showing them who WE are, not the fucking thugs who shoot at what they please.
I think the tides are starting to turn. My fiance was watching bravo last night and the real housewives of atlanta came on. they had them going to the shooting range. pretty damn cool.
MichiganMilitia
08-18-2009, 09:31
Here's the CNN version of the article... a little different. (not in a bad way)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/18/obama.protest.rifle/
I think it's a great show of defiance. It shows the world that we are here, we are trained, and we are ready to rebel against these liberty-hating policies.
On the other hand, like others have stated, we must be very careful about how and when we do this.. It is very unfortunate that this is a time when we are AFRAID to open carry.
.....I think you are confusing "rights" with "common sense"........
That sounds a lot like the argument the Brady Bunch uses. It isn't confusing at all. A right is God-given. Common sense is more of a gift. Take the Brady campaign, for example: "It's not a ban, it's common sense gun laws". They have the 'right' to free speech, but a noticeable lack of common sense.
I wish we had the gun laws Switzerland has. [Beer]
MichiganMilitia
08-18-2009, 09:45
I wish we had the gun laws Switzerland has. [Beer]
I wish we didn't have gun laws.[Bang]
Batteriesnare
08-18-2009, 10:11
I wish we didn't have gun laws.[Bang]
I agree. If I had the choice between total ban and no laws whatsoever, I'd take no laws.
Well lets see...
1. Let the media rail against the dozen or so guys that went armed with open carry. My comments are two fold.
a. And see, not a damn thing went bad.. hmmmm that craps all over their, every time there's a gun, something goes bad generalizations now don't it?
b. How many folks were carrying concealed?
2. You either have the right and choose to exercise it or you don't. In this case the weapon was shouldered, on safe and not being flaunted in anything resembling a stupid fashion. Where and really why is this wrong?
I can see your points guys, but seriously? By backing down and abiding by the "proper etiquette" established by the anti-gun lobbies and media aren't you giving up your rights? I can understand not dragging your M1A to a high school football game (don't agree that you are not able to have your side arm), then again if that's the weapon you want to carry, hey, more power to you.
But this was a rally/protest and against more than the President's failing efforts at "Health Care Reform" ... look deeper in to the stories folks, the POTUS is getting a little refresher in what exactly the Will of the People is.
Now here's the rub.. While I back this guy and the others that were present open carrying.. unless there is a push into the main stream media outlets by the likes of the NRA, GOA or who ever and at the very least bring the counter points to light we really haven't made much progress. The saddest parts of all of this is that it is near impossible to get the fair share of media time to present the other side of the issue.
So again, I cannot agree that this guy or any of the others that were open carrying are/were wrong in any way shape or form. I personally doubt I would have brought an AR to the event, I surely would have brought my side arm.
I agree. If I had the choice between total ban and no laws whatsoever, I'd take no laws.
hell yeah! I know my milk would not have cost 2.50 today.[Bang]
I wish we didn't have gun laws.[Bang]
Ummm... Switzerland has no gun laws. In fact it's practically mandatory that every one owns one. [Beer]
I agree. If I had the choice between total ban and no laws whatsoever, I'd take no laws.
I knew that sounded familiar.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." ~Thomas Jefferson
Batteriesnare
08-18-2009, 10:41
Ummm... Switzerland has no gun laws. In fact it's practically mandatory that every one owns one. [Beer]
And no one ever invades![M2]
Batteriesnare
08-18-2009, 10:42
I knew that sounded familiar.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." ~Thomas Jefferson
Makes sense to me!
[Beer]
im all for the guys right to carry, but i don't think this was good judgement. these meetings have been a little heated and carrying weapons to a possibly volatile meeting might not be good judgement in my opinion. otherwise, im all for the guys right to carry wherever he wants, no matter if the president is around or not.
The SS have guns. Enough to cut down the whole crowd if they wanted to. Nobody is saying anything about that. Where was the Brady Bunch advocating that they give up their arms?
One person accused of disorderly conduct was detained and released, according to the Gallatin Airport Authority.
And where was the POTUS saying that the Airport Police acted stupidly? Do you think he learned his lesson or didn't care cause he wasn't wearing the mark of the beast?
Ummm... Switzerland has no gun laws. In fact it's practically mandatory that every one owns one. [Beer]
Actually it is mandatory for all males who have been in the armed services (which is almost all of them). They are required to keep rifles (generally fully auto Sigs) in their homes to defend the country if the need arises.
A government that doesn't trust its own people with arms is not a government of, by, and for the people.
cdrissel
08-19-2009, 07:57
Ummm... Switzerland has no gun laws. In fact it's practically mandatory that every one owns one. [Beer]
That statement is completely false.
The Swiss have very strict gun laws.
cdrissel
08-19-2009, 08:05
Actually it is mandatory for all males who have been in the armed services (which is almost all of them). They are required to keep rifles (generally fully auto Sigs) in their homes to defend the country if the need arises.
A government that doesn't trust its own people with arms is not a government of, by, and for the people.
Part of this is some what true.
I lived in Switzerland for 2 years.
Most males are required by law to join the Army at age 20. Many get deferments based on medical reasons. This is a lifetime conscription. The Swiss have a very small active duty military. Most of the part time soldiers keep their Rifles only locked up home. They no longer issue any ammo to them. The rifle can only be taken out for official training and the soldier must be in uniform.
Private ownership of firearms is strictly controlled.
As far as personal freedom in Switzerland, you would be amazed at all the laws they have.
cdrissel
08-19-2009, 08:14
And no one ever invades![M2]
The main reasons no one invades Switzerland is that it has very limited resources and is not strategically located, unless you are trying to transport Jews and arms between Italy and Germany.........
Germany wouldn't have gotten such a bad rap if they enslaved the French only. IMHO.
Germany wouldn't have gotten such a bad rap if they enslaved the French only. IMHO.
I think Germany was after those who posed a threat [ROFL1]
That and they wanted World war... if you go after the French like that I hardly think anyone would have risked World war!
theGinsue
08-19-2009, 21:39
Good for this guy and all of the rest who were exercising their rights and staying within the law of the land!
Some times you all confuse the hell out of me. You either have the right and can exercise it or you're just a sheep in a sheepdog mask. There is nothing else here. The folks on the other side of our 2A debates want you to think that it isn't "appropriate" to exercise your rights, hey, if you want to flounder over "where and when is it appropriate" within the context of this situation.. well enjoy that, I'll have no issue reminding you that you're wrong.
Well lets see...
1. Let the media rail against the dozen or so guys that went armed with open carry. My comments are two fold.
a. And see, not a damn thing went bad.. hmmmm that craps all over their, every time there's a gun, something goes bad generalizations now don't it?
b. How many folks were carrying concealed?
2. You either have the right and choose to exercise it or you don't. In this case the weapon was shouldered, on safe and not being flaunted in anything resembling a stupid fashion. Where and really why is this wrong?
I can see your points guys, but seriously? By backing down and abiding by the "proper etiquette" established by the anti-gun lobbies and media aren't you giving up your rights? I can understand not dragging your M1A to a high school football game (don't agree that you are not able to have your side arm), then again if that's the weapon you want to carry, hey, more power to you.
But this was a rally/protest and against more than the President's failing efforts at "Health Care Reform" ... look deeper in to the stories folks, the POTUS is getting a little refresher in what exactly the Will of the People is.
Now here's the rub.. While I back this guy and the others that were present open carrying.. unless there is a push into the main stream media outlets by the likes of the NRA, GOA or who ever and at the very least bring the counter points to light we really haven't made much progress. The saddest parts of all of this is that it is near impossible to get the fair share of media time to present the other side of the issue.
So again, I cannot agree that this guy or any of the others that were open carrying are/were wrong in any way shape or form. I personally doubt I would have brought an AR to the event, I surely would have brought my side arm.
Well said BadShot.
A freedom not exercised is a freedom lost. For far too long we, law abiding gun owners, have tried to avoid the appearance of being lunatics with guns and have given the anti-gun agenda more room to throw their rhetoric around like bird seed waiting for the peasants to eat it up.
Our government officials at all levels have been displaying an increasing degree of amnesia over exactly what their purpose is and whose interests they represent. I think these brave individuals made a bold and perfectly acceptable move to remind others, including our elected officials, just where they stand. We need to stay within the law (until such time as the law violates the Constitution) and let out elected officials know that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it any more - and we will use our rights to back up our position if the need arises.
The main reasons no one invades Switzerland is that it has very limited resources and is not strategically located, unless you are trying to transport Jews and arms between Italy and Germany.........
And Chocolate; don't forget about the chocolate (the closest thing I've found to a true aphrodisiac).
Our government officials at all levels have been displaying an increasing degree of amnesia over exactly what their purpose is and whose interests they represent. I think these brave individuals made a bold and perfectly acceptable move to remind others, including our elected officials, just where they stand. We need to stay within the law (until such time as the law violates the Constitution) and let out elected officials know that we are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it any more - and we will use our rights to back up our position if the need arises.
You make a good point. I'm still worried though that it will help Obama sway popular opinion to assist him in further limiting our 2nd amendment rights. Open carrying an AR outside a presidential speech is inherently a political statement. If it sways those on the fence to support gun control (i.e., victim disarmament), then it is a bad move politically. If it is done in a way that helps sway popular opinion towards expansion of the RKBA, then it is a smart move.
This is a good healthy debate :). Whether it was the smart thing to do or not, we are probably hitting this topic too hard - nothing really came of the whole show, Obooboo didn't crack down on gun control and nobody got shot. It was a good day!
IMHO, the more that we, as gun owners, can do to create a positive image of gun owners the better. Sure, we have the RIGHT to open carry and the LAW is on our side, but we, as gun owners, also know that the overwhelmingly left media and a communist administration will use our peaceful display of our rights against us to make more of a case. We have to play politics sometimes too and I, personally, would not open carry at any demonstration that wasn't aimed at gun control if for no other reason than to not empower the enemy.
IMHO, the more that we, as gun owners, can do to create a positive image of gun owners the better. Sure, we have the RIGHT to open carry and the LAW is on our side, but we, as gun owners, also know that the overwhelmingly left media and a communist administration will use our peaceful display of our rights against us to make more of a case. We have to play politics sometimes too and I, personally, would not open carry at any demonstration that wasn't aimed at gun control if for no other reason than to not empower the enemy.
Why wouldn't a person who is within the law (Arizona is an open carry state) be adding benefit to the cause we all follow?
The crux of the issue is that the media wants to say things like "Most gun owners are law abiding citizens, but then there is the criminal element". What gets my hackles up is that they then go forward with only the demonstrations of the criminal element. A fair portion of that is our own fault.
We have acquiesced to the anti-gun factions for so many years just simply trying to hold on to the limited ground we have left, that we suddenly worry that any representation of our rights can be twisted!
I believe we have given ground to often and for too long. We should exercise our rights often and publicly. Whether that be open carry of an AR or other such rifles at a demonstration, speaking out at "town hall" meetings, standing against illegal search and seizure or simply educating any and everyone we possibly can. I don't simply limit that exercise to the 2nd Amendment. I believe that while the 2nd ensures the rest, we must continue to utilize the rest of our Constitutionally and Bill of Rights assured rights at ever possible turn.
I'll re-iterate... A Right not exercised is a Right lost!
I agree with those that think bringing their guns to a rally was a good idea. If you have the brass balls to do it. I think it should become a mainstay of political rallys. But I also see someone wearing a "Bros before ho's" t-shirt being activated like a sleeper cell and firing off their gun just to ruin it and give those slimy bastards something to bitch about.
Sure you could look at it like the hippies wearing tidie tshirts to a Bush rally. No more harmful to anyone unless they stopped showering then a gun that is unloaded. Just a symbol of a right.
Good for them.
B2crawler
08-20-2009, 16:51
I'd be a little nervous carrying a rifle like that guy was. To this point I'm happy thinking that I've never been in someones cross hair aiming a rifle at me. Sure he had a many pointed at him that day if his finger ever got to close to the trigger.[AR15]
I'd be a little nervous carrying a rifle like that guy was. To this point I'm happy thinking that I've never been in someones cross hair aiming a rifle at me. Sure he had a many pointed at him that day if his finger ever got to close to the trigger.[AR15]
I'm sure he was concentrated on heavily. Can you just imagine the SS radio traffic? [ROFL1]
theGinsue
08-20-2009, 22:55
So, today @ work I was told that "the guy with the assault rifle at the town hall meeting is a confirmed militia member and was wearing a t-shirt with the exact same logo/image that Timothy McVey was wearing when he attacked the Federal Building in OK City".
I haven't seen or heard anything that supports this claim, but it's out there.
So, today @ work I was told that "the guy with the assault rifle at the town hall meeting is a confirmed militia member and was wearing a t-shirt with the exact same logo/image that Timothy McVey was wearing when he attacked the Federal Building in OK City".
I haven't seen or heard anything that supports this claim, but it's out there.
Now a days you can show them a video and give them a nice glass of shut up to drink. Although you should make a bet before you do show the video. You could clean up.
DD977GM2
08-20-2009, 23:59
I personally feel that this is a posative for us. It reflects that we as gun owners can walk around safely with a firearm. It shows that guns do not go off by themselves and seek out babies and old folks. It shows that also to the government that we do understand our God given right and I am hoping this will change their minds on the subject of more laws on the 2A. I also feel this allows for exposure to the idea that we all know as, criminals do not care about the laws, laws only affect the law abiding citizen.
All in all we won one for a change.
ETA: I also agree with some posters that our rights do not go away due to a certain person or event happening. We either have the right or dont. Using your right in a this light just shows us gun owners are responsible etc etc.
i personally think that OC at this type of event, or any even for that matter, will have little to no effect on the agenda of the libs in the .gov or the media. i do however believe that the more it is done by clean cut respectable types (as im sure all of you are :) ) the more acceptable it will become to the general public to see these types of actions in their daily lives no matter how the media tries to twist reality.
the .gov is going to do what ever they want regardless of our actions so long as they believe they have the support of the masses, whether that support is legitimate or fabricated by ACORN and the like.
Did anyone even check to see if the AR was airsoft or real?
MichiganMilitia
08-21-2009, 16:20
airsoft? That would be hilarious.... hahahaha
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.