Bear Arms and Protest

[youngbuck]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_...protesters_guns

 

Any one see this?

[billrquimby]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_...protesters_guns

 

Any one see this?

 

It's been all over the cable news networks. Responsible gun owners do not need jerks like those guys. If I were a strategist for a group that advocated confiscating our firearms, I'd pay such dimwits to pack their AR15s at every public gathering.

 

Bill Quimby

 

[joeybari]

What a (I don’t even what to say it). That doesn’t help at all

[azhuntergirl]

What's incredibly frustrating about this gentleman is that he brought guns to the forefront of an issue where they were previously IRRELEVANT! Obama has done VERY LITTLE to effect change upon the 2nd Amendment. This was neither the time nor the place for this display of protest. Just because you're able to wield a weapon and carry openly doesn't mean that it is wise. THIS was definitely UNWISE. It allows emotion and illogical debate where there is already TOO much of that. Despicable and illogical. And I happen to know a woman who is friends with this man. He's a Libertarian Veteran who receives my respect, but not my approval in this matter.

[TAM]

This man had the legal right to do what he did.

This man was well behaved.

No viloence occored as a result of this man exercising his rights.

No arrests or citations occured as a result of this man exercising his rights.

The President and general public were never in ANY danger as a result of this man exercising his rights.

 

Some people carry a sign with a catchy bumper sticker slogan to express their opinions and some people carry a gun as a sign of their opinions. Both are legal rights. This man did nothing more than exercise his rights.

 

GOOD FOR HIM!!!

 

Some of you are nothing more than hyprocrates that say you want to protect our gun rights, but as soon as a law abiding citizen exercises them you slam them for it.

 

 

 

 

[DesertBull]

Almost every appointee and czar that Obama has picked has an extreme anti-gun history. Including the newest supreme court justice. We still have 3.5 years of this joker. He will get into your gun cabinet before it's over. The only reason he has not said much about it yet, is because his fellow lib congressmen asked him not to because they want to get re-elected.

 

 

[.270]

sorta odd that a kid can pack a plastic gun while he's hikin' and get arrested but a guy can pack real guns around the president and not get hassled. didn't the article say he was one of over a dozen people packing guns? Lark.

[desertdog]

This man had the legal right to do what he did.

This man was well behaved.

No viloence occored as a result of this man exercising his rights.

No arrests or citations occured as a result of this man exercising his rights.

The President and general public were never in ANY danger as a result of this man exercising his rights.

 

Some people carry a sign with a catchy bumper sticker slogan to express their opinions and some people carry a gun as a sign of their opinions. Both are legal rights. This man did nothing more than exercise his rights.

 

GOOD FOR HIM!!!

 

Some of you are nothing more than hyprocrates that say you want to protect our gun rights, but as soon as a law abiding citizen exercises them you slam them for it.

 

I see your point TAM but come on. Just because you can do something does not mean you should or its the right choice to do it. Things are so heated right now that the last thing we as gun owners need is someone to cast us in a negative light. He did nothing wrong yes, but I am a big advocate of defusing a situation not escalating it. Just my thoughts.

[azhuntergirl]

This man had the legal right to do what he did.

This man was well behaved.

No viloence occored as a result of this man exercising his rights.

No arrests or citations occured as a result of this man exercising his rights.

The President and general public were never in ANY danger as a result of this man exercising his rights.

 

Some people carry a sign with a catchy bumper sticker slogan to express their opinions and some people carry a gun as a sign of their opinions. Both are legal rights. This man did nothing more than exercise his rights.

 

GOOD FOR HIM!!!

 

Some of you are nothing more than hyprocrates that say you want to protect our gun rights, but as soon as a law abiding citizen exercises them you slam them for it.

 

I agree he had the right. His rights aren't in question here TAM. What I'm disputing is the time and place mechanism. Just because we possess rights doesn't mean that those rights are ALWAYS prudent to exercise. We live in a country where the media has distorted firearms into weapons, law abiding citizens into criminals, and republican/conservatives into Waco wackos. While it's tragic that this is the case, and infuriating that liberals never have to live by the same standards, the best way to overcome this obvious misrepresentation is to NOT play into their hands. By walking around with a firearm like an AR-15 that was made infamous by the media and feared by non-gun-owning citizens, we are allowing the media to distort our view even further. The gun issue hasn't even been an issue Obama has attacked yet. If you're going to make a pre-emptive strike, I'm not against that, but make sure it's not inflammatory and sensational.

 

As to your last statement. I'm not sure it's appropriate to call people hypocrites because they disagree with the mechanism others use in exercising our rights. I grew up in a family where the 2nd amendment was spoken about, displayed, and exercised with responsibility. I'm no more a hypocrite than you are a murderer.

 

[azhuntnut]

I totally agree with what you said. The weapon was unloaded, plus they had a police escort the entire time. The escort was for there safety from anybody that might try to grab the gun from him in protest. The situation might have had some people disagreeing with him, but it sure got everybody to take a close look at our gun rights. David

 

http://www.arizonashooting.com/v3/viewtopi...f=2&t=86525

 

 

 

This man had the legal right to do what he did.

This man was well behaved.

No viloence occored as a result of this man exercising his rights.

No arrests or citations occured as a result of this man exercising his rights.

The President and general public were never in ANY danger as a result of this man exercising his rights.

 

Some people carry a sign with a catchy bumper sticker slogan to express their opinions and some people carry a gun as a sign of their opinions. Both are legal rights. This man did nothing more than exercise his rights.

 

GOOD FOR HIM!!!

 

Some of you are nothing more than hyprocrates that say you want to protect our gun rights, but as soon as a law abiding citizen exercises them you slam them for it.

 

 

 

 

 

[billrquimby]

"The situation might have had some people disagreeing with him, but it sure got everybody to take a close look at our gun rights. David"

 

Unfortunately, the White House and the U.S. Congress are controlled by members of a political party with a plank that calls for reducing our freedom to possess and use firearms. We would be wise to keep our heads down until we can change that fact. Calling attention to the law that allows us to carry firearms at public gatherings attended by the president of the United States can only lead to legislation to "reform" that situation.

 

I am a firm believer in the Second Amendment, but I also feel that the certain people should lose the right to keep and bear arms because of their actions. These include convicted felons, persons with a proven history of violence or mental illness, and wannabe Rambos such as the jerk photographed with that AR15.

 

Bill Quimby

[azhuntnut]

I wonder what other rights they will try to take away from us when Obama is in your town.

 

Bill, I know you look at this guy as a Rambo type, but he volunteered to be the person to carry the gun. The entire day was coordinated in advance with law enforcement just so it was not viewed as a bunch of nuts running around with guns. If we do not unite together to protect our rights, they will be taken away before we can blink an eye. You have so many more years of wisdom and experience than I do; and I respect that fact, but I am not going to let our goverment determine when and where I am able to carry my firearms to protect myself and my family. David

 

 

 

 

Leading The News

 

D.C. delegate calls for ban on guns near Obama

By Jordy Yager

Posted: 08/19/09 05:51 PM [ET]

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called on the Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Secret Service on Wednesday to provide tighter restrictions on citizens carrying weapons, openly or concealed, while in the vicinity of President Barack Obama.

 

Norton, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, made the request after numerous news reports have shown groups of people brandishing firearms while outside of events held by Obama over the past several weeks.

 

“It is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the president is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that are even closer to the President,” Norton said.

 

But the Secret Service says that Obama was never in danger when a group of about a dozen protesters brandished their firearms outside the Phoenix convention center earlier this week where he was speaking.

 

One man carried an AR-15 assault rifle, but Arizona law allows people to carry unconcealed guns and police made no arrests.

 

“This doesn’t change what already exists for Secret Service,” said Secret Service spokesman Malcolm Wiley of Norton’s request.

 

“Whenever the Secret Service travels somewhere in the country, we are able to determine what the security parameters will be for any particular site and anything within those parameters fall under federal law as far as being able to control what happens there.”

 

“So even if the state law says that you can have a gun as long as it’s not concealed, it doesn’t mean that you can bring a gun into a protected site.”

 

Norton has been battling with gun rights supporters for years because of the District’s former ban on handguns, which was struck down by the Supreme Court last year. More recently, a bill to grant the District a representational vote in Congress has stalled in the House because of an amendment that would make it easier to own a gun in D.C.

 

The Arizona event followed a similar instance in New Hampshire – which has open-carry laws – last week when police arrested a man for having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car near where Obama was set to hold a healthcare-related forum. Another man outside of that event had a licensed handgun strapped to his leg and held a sign that read: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

 

“In both instances, those guys were outside of the outer-most perimeter of security, so what would apply is state law,” said Wiley. “They never had any proximity to the president at any time. They weren’t trying to gain access to the event and they weren’t in a position outside the event where they could have affected the president.”

 

But the Brady Campaign, a gun control group, said that these increasing instances of brandishing firearms in public could lead to escalated scenarios in the future that put the president at risk because it stretches law enforcement thin.

 

“Law enforcement has to keep an eye on these people,” said Paul Helmke, president of the group. “So the more people [who] carry guns, the more people you need to keep an eye on them, which stretches limited resources further. You get an event like in Phoenix with maybe 12 or 13 people, what if at the next event there are 100? And when you take the law enforcement resources away, that makes the president more vulnerable.”

 

Larry Pratt, executive director of the Gun Owners of America, a gun rights group in Virginia, said that this is nothing new nor is it different than law-abiding gun owners bringing their weapons into restaurants, as they have been known to do periodically in the Commonwealth.

 

“There have been a few calls to the police and the police have come to the point now where they ask one question: ‘What are these gun carriers doing?’ And they get the response that they’re eating and say, ‘Well, if they start doing something, let us know.’ So when somebody goes to a rally, obviously if the president is there it’s going to get more attention, but I don’t think we’re really dealing with anything different.”

 

 

 

[CRB]

I totally agree with what you said. The weapon was unloaded, plus they had a police escort the entire time. The escort was for there safety from anybody that might try to grab the gun from him in protest. The situation might have had some people disagreeing with him, but it sure got everybody to take a close look at our gun rights. David

 

http://www.arizonashooting.com/v3/viewtopi...f=2&t=86525

 

 

 

This man had the legal right to do what he did.

This man was well behaved.

No viloence occored as a result of this man exercising his rights.

No arrests or citations occured as a result of this man exercising his rights.

The President and general public were never in ANY danger as a result of this man exercising his rights.

 

Some people carry a sign with a catchy bumper sticker slogan to express their opinions and some people carry a gun as a sign of their opinions. Both are legal rights. This man did nothing more than exercise his rights.

 

GOOD FOR HIM!!!

 

Some of you are nothing more than hyprocrates that say you want to protect our gun rights, but as soon as a law abiding citizen exercises them you slam them for it.

Im with TAM on this one if we wait untill soeone else tells us when we can protest it may be too late now is the time.

[TAM]

I think exercising our rights is like exercising our bodies. If we don't exercies our rights or our bodies we will loose our strength and any progress we have made.

 

To those that don't believe BO has attacked our gun rights... Nearly every person he has put on his staff is anti gun. This is like saying Russia has surrounded the US coast line with ships and submarines carrying nucular weapons, but they haven't fired any shots so we will just stand by and wait for them to throw the first punch. Gun owners can't afford to sit and wait for BO to make a direct attack on our gun rights. We must let our voices be heard... NOW!

 

The media is ALWAYS going to portray guns in a negative light. We need to stop worrying about what the media or wacked out leftist liberals are going to think. As long as our protests/demonstrations are legal and peaceful then we will come out ahead in the long run.

 

 

[azhuntergirl]

The more we look like radicals, the less change we are able to effect. And thanks to Chris (Gentleman with AR) Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) is calling for MORE restrictive measures...ALL brought on by this incident. I doubt the founders would have walked around with AR's if they had them. They would have used rhetoric and logic to effect change, as they did with countless letters to the British before it came to all-out war. War was their LAST resort.

 

Some of you yanks may be lookin for a fight, but I can guarantee that I'm not. Look folks, while I understand that blood MAY have to be shed to keep our nation free, I'm not ready to give up the war of words for my stockpile in order to put my family and future generations in danger. War is NOT pretty. It isn't something I want to happen again on American soil between fellow countrymen. If we can keep this debate civil without inflaming the other side to further restrict our rights, we'll be much better off.

 

This war is more effectively fought via elections (And LOOK! We have a MAJOR one coming up next November) than it is through grandiose [read: stupid] gestures and sending out harbingers of war.

 

IMHO,

azhuntergirl