View Full Version : Guy carries firearm while attending town hall meeting
noblegas
Aug12-09, 01:38 AM
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/08/11/2026745.aspx
Outside the event where President Obama will conduct his town hall, there is an anti-Obama protestor with a gun -- a pistol strapped to his lower leg.
The local police chief said it's legal for the man to have a registered handgun -- as long as it is not concealed. What's more, he is on private property, a church yard, which has given him permission to be there.
*** UPDATE *** More on the man with the gun... William Kostric is a married man in his mid 30S who works in sales. He says he moved here to New Hampshire from Arizona about a year ago, because it's a "live free or die" state -- and he thought Arizona was becoming too restrictive with its gun laws.
He's passing out a bookmark that says, "Join the Second Amendment Revolution, the most exciting pro-liberty movement in over 200 years."
He's a Ron Paul supporter, who opposes just about everything Obama, including health care reform.
The local police say he is within his rights to carry a handgun openly under state law. He was carrying a 9-mm Smith and Wesson strapped to his lower leg.
Police say he's OK on a public sidewalk. Kostric says he has permission from a church just down the street from the high school to be on its private property.
He says he was approached by a "detective," possibly a Secret Service Agent, who told him he could be arrested within 1,000 feet of a school with a weapon under a federal law. Kostric moved back to private property.
When Obama arrived, the police had Kostric under surveillance. A local police captain said the Secret Service has been "in the loop."
Kostric has been about 50 to 75 yards from the entrance to the high school, since about 11:00 am ET, doing interviews and carrying a sign and his gun and police have had their eye on him. But as long as he's been "cooperative," they have watched, but let him be.
Discuss. Did he pose a threat carrying a concealed weapon in his pocket? Do you think he had latent intentions other than opposing Obama's healthcare plan?
Pengwuino
Aug12-09, 01:46 AM
Discuss. Did he pose a threat carrying a concealed weapon in his pocket? Do you think he had latent intentions other than opposing Obama's healthcare plan?
The Secret Service plans events like this months in advance and would have undoubtably had previous communications with the man beforehand. People don't typically get to walk around with a gun near a presidential event without getting carried off at gunpoint unless the SS knows about it.
noblegas
Aug12-09, 02:03 AM
The Secret Service plans events like this months in advance and would have undoubtably had previous communications with the man beforehand. People don't typically get to walk around with a gun near a presidential event without getting carried off at gunpoint unless the SS knows about it.
That doesn't make sense to me. The SS could not possibly anticipate who would show up and who would not at these kinds of events; I pretty sure if they were predicting gun violence, they would have contacted New -hampshire police about telling their citizens not to carry gunds and would have told citizens not to bring guns to these events; The article says that the man didn't break any state laws concerning carrying a handgun and so I don't understand how he would possibly be arrested; There isn't any federal law that I am aware of that says you are not allowed to carry weapons to events where the president will be present;
drankin
Aug12-09, 02:06 AM
meh, so what? He's is just one man that is carrying that people know about. He just wanted to make a political statement.
Most people who carry don't make it public information. Like myself. I don't appreciate it because it gives us who carry a bad rap. If the yuppies actually knew how many people actually carry concealed handguns around them, they would freak out.
drankin
Aug12-09, 02:10 AM
That doesn't make sense to me. The SS could not possibly anticipate who would show up and who would not at these kinds of events; I pretty sure if they were predicting gun violence, they would have contacted New -hampshire police about telling their citizens not to carry gunds and would have told citizens not to bring guns to these events; The article says that the man didn't break any state laws concerning carrying a handgun and so I don't understand how he would possibly be arrested; There isn't any federal law that I am aware of that says you are not allowed to carry weapons to events where the president will be present;
This is a good point. There was nothing illegal about it. The President or the SS cannot simply deny people their legal rights on a whim. This is the US for crying out loud. If it were in a federal building then of course, that's the policy for a federal building. But this was a church.
Pengwuino
Aug12-09, 02:11 AM
That doesn't make sense to me. The SS could not possibly anticipate who would show up and who would not at these kinds of events; I pretty sure if they were predicting gun violence, they would have contacted New -hampshire police about telling their citizens not to carry gunds and would have told citizens not to bring guns to these events; The article says that the man didn't break any state laws concerning carrying a handgun and so I don't understand how he would possibly be arrested; There isn't any federal law that I am aware of that says you are not allowed to carry weapons to events where the president will be present;
Events with the president are made far in advance. If this person wanted to have a protest or give out information, he would contact the police who would in turn contact the secret service. If you simply walk up out of the blue with a gun where the president is going to be, they will talk to you or bring you in. In either case, they will know who you are and where you are at all times. For all we know, he may have had an unloaded weapon and been searched prior to it. Just because the media was surprised doesn't mean the secret service was.
drankin
Aug12-09, 02:15 AM
Events with the president are made far in advance. If this person wanted to have a protest or give out information, he would contact the police who would in turn contact the secret service. If you simply walk up out of the blue with a gun where the president is going to be, they will talk to you or bring you in. In either case, they will know who you are and where you are at all times. For all we know, he may have had an unloaded weapon and been searched prior to it. Just because the media was surprised doesn't mean the secret service was.
He didn't contact police or make prior arrangements. And I'M SURE his gun was loaded. Carrying an unloaded gun in public is idiotic. Carrying an unloaded gun on your leg for any reason is idiotic. He was simply making a statement and doing so peacefully, though I don't condone it, he wasn't breaking any laws.
Pengwuino
Aug12-09, 02:20 AM
He didn't contact police or make prior arrangements. And I'M SURE his gun was loaded. Carrying an unloaded gun in public is idiotic. Carrying an unloaded gun on your leg for any reason is idiotic. He was simply making a statement and doing so peacefully, though I don't condone it, he wasn't breaking any laws.
So carrying a loaded gun near an event with the president is the non-idiotic option...? Guess that's one way of looking at it...
drankin
Aug12-09, 02:26 AM
So carrying a loaded gun near an event with the president is the non-idiotic option...? Guess that's one way of looking at it...
I think it's idiotic. But openly carrying an unloaded gun can attract gunfire that you are not equipped to return. If there is word worse than idiotic, that would describe the individual who carries an unloaded firearm openly, in public.
But, I would have no problem carrying my handgun, concealed, to this event. I would call that "prudent".
Pengwuino
Aug12-09, 02:31 AM
I think it's idiotic. But openly carrying an unloaded gun can attract gunfire that you are not equipped to return. If there is word worse than idiotic, that would describe the individual who carries an unloaded firearm openly, in public.
Ok, in pretty much every other situation I'd obviously agree. However, in this one very special situation, being surrounded by other people with weapons who aren't necessarily hoping to kill you and that you've consulted with... i think it's quite safe.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug12-09, 02:31 AM
This is a good point. There was nothing illegal about it. The President or the SS cannot simply deny people their legal rights on a whim. This is the US for crying out loud. If it were in a federal building then of course, that's the policy for a federal building. But this was a church.
The secret service can do what ever they feel is necessary, within reason, to protect the president. When ever the president is going to be present at a location the secret service set up well in advance, as Pengwuino points out, and they block off the streets for at least a block radius. Depending on the situation people may not be allowed into the area where the president will be unless they have been vetted by the Secret Service. Any person who is in the same room with the president has most likely been vetted before hand.
He didn't contact police or make prior arrangements. And I'M SURE his gun was loaded. Carrying an unloaded gun in public is idiotic. Carrying an unloaded gun on your leg for any reason is idiotic. He was simply making a statement and doing so peacefully, though I don't condone it, he wasn't breaking any laws.
Considering the circumstances if all he wanted to do was make a statement and he was told he would not be allowed to carry the firearm loaded I am sure that he would have gone along with it. Otherwise I seriously doubt that they would have let him in.
So carrying a loaded gun near an event with the president is the non-idiotic option...?
Was carrying a loaded gun near the presence of the president a bad idea? Perhaps it was. Was it his right to do so (in a non-federal building)? Yes. Should it be? No.
Pengwuino
Aug12-09, 02:34 AM
Was carrying a loaded gun near the presence of the president a bad idea? Perhaps it was. Was it his right to do so (in a non-federal building)? Yes. Should it be? No.
Was I saying whether it was a good or bad thing to do? or that he did or didn't have the right to?
drankin
Aug12-09, 02:37 AM
Was carrying a loaded gun near the presence of the president a bad idea? Perhaps it was. Was it his right to do so (in a non-federal building)? Yes. Should it be? No.
I disagree with your last statement. We do not lose our rights just because the President is in our vacinity. The SS should have held the meeting in a more controlled environment IMO. Like a federal building. But if he is going to mingle in our "presence" he does so at risk.
I disagree with your last statement. We do not lose our rights just because the President is in our vacinity. The SS should have held the meeting in a more controlled environment IMO. Like a federal building. But if he is going to mingle in our "presence" he does so at risk.
If our president is going to MINGLE in our presence he does so at risk. lol? Thats messed up.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug12-09, 02:49 AM
But if he is going to mingle in our "presence" he does so at risk.
Lol... isn't that a bit rediculous? We have an agency devoted (mostly) to defending the president and spend millions on protecting him yearly but we are going to tell him that he ought to just assume the risk if he happens to go to a public place?
We do not lose our rights just because the President is in our vacinity.
If the secret service would have deemed him a threat, I think it's safe to say that threat would have been neutralised. Given the amount of effort you put into protecting your president, there is no chance that just anyone will be allowed to stroll around with a gun as the president walks next to him to a planned meeting. As it was, the worst thing that happened was probably the town paying for a few extra police officers to be on duty.
drankin
Aug12-09, 03:44 AM
Lol... isn't that a bit rediculous? We have an agency devoted (mostly) to defending the president and spend millions on protecting him yearly but we are going to tell him that he ought to just assume the risk if he happens to go to a public place?
It is a risk for the President to appear in public. Remember Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, JFK? That is 4 out of 44. It is extremely risky to appear in an uncontrolled environment, like a private church. The Presidency is the most dangerous occupation in America. I don't care how much money you spend on the SS.
Editing the "attempts successful". I meant to say almost 1 out of 10 Presidents are assissinated.
drankin
Aug12-09, 03:46 AM
If the secret service would have deemed him a threat, I think it's safe to say that threat would have been neutralised. Given the amount of effort you put into protecting your president, there is no chance that just anyone will be allowed to stroll around with a gun as the president walks next to him to a planned meeting. As it was, the worst thing that happened was probably the town paying for a few extra police officers to be on duty.
He wasn't a threat. He was just carrying his pistol on his leg in a completely legal nonthreatening fashion.
If the President is going to appear in public, where the public has the right to carry openly...
TheStatutoryApe
Aug12-09, 05:18 AM
It is a risk for the President to appear in public. Remember Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, JFK? That is 4 out of 44. It is extremely risky to appear in an uncontrolled environment, like a private church. The Presidency is the most dangerous occupation in America. I don't care how much money you spend on the SS.
Editing the "attempts successful". I meant to say almost 1 out of 10 Presidents are assissinated.
I understand that. But saying that appearing in public is inherantly risky is different than saying that he should simply assume the risks instead of doing all that can reasonably be done to minimize them.
He wasn't a threat. He was just carrying his pistol on his leg in a completely legal nonthreatening fashion.
If the President is going to appear in public, where the public has the right to carry openly...
An assassin could just as easily carry a pistol in a completely legal and non-threatening fashion up until the point that [s]he pulls it out and starts shooting. Again, I don't see how not having a weapon on ones person at such an event is an unreasonable requirement by the presidents security detail.
An assassin could just as easily carry a pistol in a completely legal and non-threatening fashion up until the point that [s]he pulls it out and starts shooting.
Exactly. Which is why this guy will have had extensive background checks run on him before the decision to allow his "peaceful protest" to go ahead was made. It's naive to think that any old joe will be allowed to run around next to the president with a weapon.
drankin
Aug12-09, 06:33 AM
Exactly. Which is why this guy will have had extensive background checks run on him before the decision to allow his "peaceful protest" to go ahead was made. It's naive to think that any old joe will be allowed to run around next to the president with a weapon.
Just as many background checks as the rest of us old joes. He was legal begal to be armed but at the same time he was an anti-Obama protester. He was an armed civilian within shooting range of the President. Like I said before, it could just as well have been me in the room with my firearm, loaded, safety off. To think that extensive background checks were done on everyone in the meeting, before they attended, who could have been armed, is naive.
ideasrule
Aug12-09, 07:16 AM
If I were Obama, I'd feel threatened if I see a political opponent with a gun within shooting range of me. The constitution may allows citizens to bear arms, but this is a matter of safety, and it's not unreasonable to refrain from acting like an assassin.
To think that extensive background checks were done on everyone in the meeting, before they attended, who could have been armed, is naive.
I disagree. Of course, none of this information is ever made public, so we'll never know who is right or wrong!
TheStatutoryApe
Aug12-09, 08:11 AM
If I were Obama, I'd feel threatened if I see a political opponent with a gun within shooting range of me. The constitution may allows citizens to bear arms, but this is a matter of safety, and it's not unreasonable to refrain from acting like an assassin.
Funny, I just found this in another article on him....
William Kostric took advantage of that law on Tuesday to show up outside President Obama's Portsmouth, N.H. town hall meeting and hold a sign saying "It Is Time To Water The Tree Of Liberty." That invokes a phrase from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
From the OP:
UPDATE *** More on the man with the gun... William Kostric is a married man in his mid 30S who works in sales. He says he moved here to New Hampshire from Arizona about a year ago, because it's a "live free or die" state -- and he thought Arizona was becoming too restrictive with its gun laws.
I doubt his reason for moving from AZ. AZ has some of the most least restrictive gun laws in the country. I can strap a gun visibly on my hip and walk into a bar, or anywhere for that matter.
This was just recently passed by the state legislature. They failed to pass a law allowing 18 year olds to carry weapons to school.
Ivan Seeking
Aug12-09, 07:30 PM
William Kostric took advantage of that law on Tuesday to show up outside President Obama's Portsmouth, N.H. town hall meeting and hold a sign saying "It Is Time To Water The Tree Of Liberty." That invokes a phrase from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
It seems to me that might legally qualify as a threat. Displaying a gun and effectively calling for bloodshed could easily be seen as threatening behavior.
I hope this nut enjoyed not having the Secret Service or the FBI watching his every move. For the next seven and a half years he will probably be on a watch list. It is also hard to believe that someone who would put on such a display doesn't have something to hide in the form of illegal activity. If he does have anything to hide, he probably just hung himself.
turbo-1
Aug12-09, 07:52 PM
If somebody showed up armed outside a Bush or Cheney rally with an inflammatory poster, there is little question that they would have spent time in the slammer. Hell, you couldn't even get into one of their public appearances if their vetters thought you might not be a faithful GOP robot. When Spiro Agnew visited the University of Maine, the SS shut down about half of the campus, and the only people allowed to ask questions were Young Republicans pre-screened by the Political Science staff. People who tried to ask unauthorized questions were dragged out of the hall by the SS. I was there. The people who were dragged out were not violent nor disruptive, just inconvenient.
noblegas
Aug12-09, 07:58 PM
It seems to me that might legally qualify as a threat. Displaying a gun and effectively calling for bloodshed could easily be seen as threatening behavior.
I hope this nut enjoyed not having the Secret Service or the FBI watching his every move. For the next seven and a half years he will probably be on a watch list. It is also hard to believe that someone who would put on such a display doesn't have something to hide in the form of illegal activity. If he does have anything to hide, he probably just hung himself.
What has the world come to when a private citizen carrying a gun in public is automatically seen as a threat. You are associating stereotypes about lone gunmen like Timmy McVeigh with this guy; I could understand If he was part of some white-nationalist group or N.H. state laws prohibited citizens from carrying firearms in certain public places, but in NH you are allowed to carry a firearm , and he kept his gun in his pocket the whole time;
turbo-1
Aug12-09, 08:02 PM
What has the world come to when a private citizen carrying a gun in public is automatically seen as a threat. You are associating stereotypes about lone gunmen like Timmy McVeigh with this guy; I could understand If he was part of some white-nationalist group or N.H. state laws prohibited citizens from carrying firearms in certain public places, but in NH you are allowed to carry a firearm , and he kept his gun in his pocket the whole time;No, he kept his gun on public display at all times. Hiding a gun in a pocket is only permitted when you have a concealed-carry permit.
noblegas
Aug12-09, 08:03 PM
If somebody showed up armed outside a Bush or Cheney rally with an inflammatory poster, there is little question that they would have spent time in the slammer. Hell, you couldn't even get into one of their public appearances if their vetters thought you might not be a faithful GOP robot. When Spiro Agnew visited the University of Maine, the SS shut down about half of the campus, and the only people allowed to ask questions were Young Republicans pre-screened by the Political Science staff. People who tried to ask unauthorized questions were dragged out of the hall by the SS. I was there. The people who were dragged out were not violent nor disruptive, just inconvenient.
What do you mean by inflammatory? I've seen many videos of liberals at rallies protesting the war on iraq and some of these protesters would have bush sketched as the devil or hitler or they would yell phrases like "bush is a nazi" and they didn't get arrested; In fact, George Soros compared Bush to hitler or a nazi in one of his books
What do you mean by inflammatory? I've seen many videos of liberals at rallies protesting the war on iraq and some of these protesters would have bush sketched as the devil or hitler or they would yell phrases like "bush is a nazi" and they didn't get arrested; In fact, George Soros compared Bush to hitler or a nazi in one of his books
The obvious difference between Bush protesters yelling out that he's a Nazi and what this guy did was the presence of the loaded gun.
As far as what someone wrote in a book, that's irrelevant, as it posed no immediate danger to the President.
noblegas
Aug12-09, 08:57 PM
The obvious difference between Bush protesters yelling out that he's a Nazi and what this guy did was the presence of the loaded gun.
As far as what someone wrote in a book, that's irrelevant, as it posed no immediate danger to the President.
I was talking about the protesters who were comparing obama to hitler, not the guy with the gun; Well, why don't we then prohibit citizens from carrying guns in public places since apparently, having a gun attached to your shorts is a threat to humanity if it is a threat to the president. It doesn't make any sense to me for the gun laws to change just because the president is present at an event; Had this been any other event in N.H., it would not have gotten the media coverage this event has received;
I agree with you that what soros says posed no threat to the president at the time; Neither does the unruly protesters at the townhall meetings labeling president obama as a nazi since they technically are not threatening him;
I was talking about the protesters who were comparing obama to hitler, not the guy with the gun; Well, why don't we then prohibit citizens from carrying guns in public places since apparently, having a gun attached to your shorts is a threat to humanity if it is a threat to the president. It doesn't make any sense to me for the gun laws to change just because the president is present at an event; Had this been any other event in N.H., it would not have gotten the media coverage this event has received;
I agree with you that what soros says posed no threat to the president at the time; Neither does the unruly protesters at the townhall meetings labeling president obama as a nazi since they technically are not threatening him;
Well, maybe Godwin's Law* converges faster at town hall meetings.
* "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" (I paraphrased a bit).
27Thousand
Aug12-09, 09:59 PM
He says he was approached by a "detective," possibly a Secret Service Agent, who told him he could be arrested within 1,000 feet of a school with a weapon under a federal law. Kostric moved back to private property.
Something interesting I found out about all this, some states passed laws allowing students to carry guns onto campus if they have a concealed carry permit and if the university allows it.
Utah went a step further. The Utah Supreme Court ruled that a public school (K-12 & public colleges) can't stop someone with a concealed carry permit from carrying a loaded gun onto campus, since they're funded with tax money. The University of Utah tried to fight it, but were put down by the Utah Supreme Court. Utah's the only state in the nation where public schools are required to allow it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Utah
http://www.utcourts.gov/OPINIONS/supopin/UnivofUtah090806.pdf
The Brady Campaign wasn't happy.
Ivan Seeking
Aug12-09, 09:59 PM
What has the world come to when a private citizen carrying a gun in public is automatically seen as a threat. You are associating stereotypes about lone gunmen like Timmy McVeigh with this guy; I could understand If he was part of some white-nationalist group or N.H. state laws prohibited citizens from carrying firearms in certain public places, but in NH you are allowed to carry a firearm , and he kept his gun in his pocket the whole time;
I'm not stereotyping based on his weapon. In fact I am an avid supporter of private gun ownership. I have a bunch of guns myself. I am making a judgement based on his lack of good judgment and his choice of words. The phrase that he referenced effectively calls for bloodshed. To do this while displaying a weapon rises to the level of being both idiotic and aggressive - a thinly veiled threat. Someone that is both that stupid and that aggressive almost certainly engages in other questionable activities.
If anything, actions like his can make even an avid supporter of gun rights wonder about that choice. Idiots like this guy make it a difficult position to defend. The first rule of private gun ownership is to act responsibly. He was being provocative. This only acts to threaten my right to own a gun.
Chi Meson
Aug12-09, 10:20 PM
The guy wanted very much to be arrested, I suspect. That would "prove" his point of our "liberties being taken away." But he wasn't. Think of it, a guy was able to hang out in the presence of the President with a weapon, and holding a veiled threat, and he was watched, but left alone. Seems our rights are doing OK. So what's that guy complaining about?
drankin
Aug12-09, 10:29 PM
I'm not stereotyping based on his weapon. In fact I am an avid supporter of private gun ownership. I have a bunch of guns myself. I am making a judgement based on his lack of good judgment and his choice of words. The phrase that he referenced effectively calls for bloodshed. To do this while displaying a weapon rises to the level of being both idiotic and aggressive - a thinly veiled threat. Someone that is both that stupid and that aggressive almost certainly engages in other questionable activities.
If anything, actions like his can make even an avid supporter of gun rights wonder about that choice. Idiots like this guy make it a difficult position to defend. The first rule of private gun ownership is to act responsibly. He was being provocative. This only acts to threaten my right to own a gun.
Yep, just because you have the right doesn't mean you should exercise it as a political statement. He is an idiot. Fortunately for him, being an idiot isn't crime in itself.
noblegas
Aug12-09, 11:20 PM
I'm not stereotyping based on his weapon. In fact I am an avid supporter of private gun ownership. I have a bunch of guns myself. I am making a judgement based on his lack of good judgment and his choice of words. The phrase that he referenced effectively calls for bloodshed. To do this while displaying a weapon rises to the level of being both idiotic and aggressive - a thinly veiled threat. Someone that is both that stupid and that aggressive almost certainly engages in other questionable activities.
If anything, actions like his can make even an avid supporter of gun rights wonder about that choice. Idiots like this guy make it a difficult position to defend. The first rule of private gun ownership is to act responsibly. He was being provocative. This only acts to threaten my right to own a gun.
I think see what you mean. I think he put himself in danger because SS could have physically attacked and injured him and then had him arrested unnecessarily,even though what he was illegal; That thomas jefferson quote means that people will die in the name of liberty if the constitutional republic they established is replaced by a tyrannical regime; Thats what the 2nd amendment is all about , using violence to counterattack a violent regime; It could be debated why he needed to make a statement about statism at a townhall meeting about healthcare reform
russ_watters
Aug12-09, 11:51 PM
What has the world come to when a private citizen carrying a gun in public is automatically seen as a threat. I think you misunderstood: the gun itself is not a threat. The poster, on its own, could be considered a threat. The gun and the poster, together, are a pretty overt threat. I'm surprised he was allowed to be there - I wonder if people misunderstood the poster? Well, why don't we then prohibit citizens from carrying guns in public places since apparently, having a gun attached to your shorts is a threat to humanity if it is a threat to the president. It doesn't make any sense to me for the gun laws to change just because the president is present at an event; Had this been any other event in N.H., it would not have gotten the media coverage this event has received... The combination of the gun and the poster says 'I have a gun and I think I should use it to kill the President'. That thomas jefferson quote means that people will die in the name of liberty if the constitutional republic they established is replaced by a tyrannical regime; Thats what the 2nd amendment is all about , using violence to counterattack a violent regime; It could be debated why he needed to make a statement about statism at a townhall meeting about healthcare reform... The natural conclusion is that he made the statement because of who was attending the meeting (which makes it a pretty specific threat) - the statement may not have had anything to do with healthcare. He's the patriot and the President is the tyrant.
Huckleberry
Aug13-09, 12:26 AM
The guy wanted very much to be arrested, I suspect. That would "prove" his point of our "liberties being taken away." But he wasn't. Think of it, a guy was able to hang out in the presence of the President with a weapon, and holding a veiled threat, and he was watched, but left alone. Seems our rights are doing OK. So what's that guy complaining about? He's probably grumbling that he didn't have his liberties violated. He wanted to create an incident and shame Obama publicly. His plan backfired I think.
He has been accused of being a team member of a group that filed a claim challenging Obama's citizenship. People are already digging through his past trying to connect any negative material to him.
http://www.newser.com/story/66736/gun-toting-obama-protester-is-a-birther.html
edit- I don't put any stock in the site. Just making a point that people are looking. Check out the site's slogan "Read Less Know More". That's classic!
It's funny that everyone is concerned about an obvious non-threat, as if someone who might harm the President would carry a gun openly, instead of real threats that may have been present. The people keeping an eye on this guy should have been keeping their eye on everyone, including him, but mostly looking for real threats.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug13-09, 01:07 AM
Exactly. Which is why this guy will have had extensive background checks run on him before the decision to allow his "peaceful protest" to go ahead was made. It's naive to think that any old joe will be allowed to run around next to the president with a weapon.
I hope this nut enjoyed not having the Secret Service or the FBI watching his every move. For the next seven and a half years he will probably be on a watch list. It is also hard to believe that someone who would put on such a display doesn't have something to hide in the form of illegal activity. If he does have anything to hide, he probably just hung himself.
From what I understand the neo nazis have been trying to keep a low profile so they can avoid being flagged on background checks and more of them can aquire jobs in law enforcement and such. I think even the skinheads are starting to try to dress more respectably and have gone back to more of the original English skinhead fashion. Whether or not a neonazi would be able to pass an actual thurough background check by the feds I have no idea but I think they would like to aim for this.
Note that I have no reason to believe that this guy is a neonazi or KKK member but if anyone were to try to assassinate Obama I think they would be the most likely candidates.
It seems to me that might legally qualify as a threat. Displaying a gun and effectively calling for bloodshed could easily be seen as threatening behavior.
I was wondering about that. I'm not much for historic quotes so I know I would never have recognized it myself. New Hampshire being New Hampshire I'm assuming more people there would have recognized it though perhaps no one caught the reference.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug13-09, 01:09 AM
It's funny that everyone is concerned about an obvious non-threat, as if someone who might harm the President would carry a gun openly, instead of real threats that may have been present. The people keeping an eye on this guy should have been keeping their eye on everyone, including him, but mostly looking for real threats.
That's part of the problem really. You can't ignore the obvious potential threat just because its obvious. Having this guy present means they have to keep an eye on him and may be less likely to be paying enough attention to everyone else.
drankin
Aug13-09, 01:28 AM
It's been blown out of proportion. The guy was making a statement and meant no physical harm to the Prez. The media loved it. Time to move on...
russ_watters
Aug13-09, 02:01 AM
It's been blown out of proportion. The guy was making a statement and meant no physical harm to the Prez.. You're probably right, but the secret service doesn't have the luxury of making such judgement calls. They have to address threats at face value because probably isn't good enough.
drankin
Aug13-09, 04:08 AM
You're probably right, but the secret service doesn't have the luxury of making such judgement calls. They have to address threats at face value because probably isn't good enough.
As I was saying before, the Presidency should avoid public uncontrolled forums. Every President that has been assassinated was in such a place. It's unfortunate and shouldn't be so in the US but the SS can only do so much. Wearing a gun openly as opposed to wearing a gun concealed, how many people were legally carrying that they did not know about in NH? People are armed in are society. Between those who legally carry openly and concealed, who is more of a threat? The Presidents who have been assissinated (if I have my history right) were shot by people who did not wear their gun openly. That would be a statistical fact to be considered.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug13-09, 04:35 AM
As I was saying before, the Presidency should avoid public uncontrolled forums. Every President that has been assassinated was in such a place. It's unfortunate and shouldn't be so in the US but the SS can only do so much. Wearing a gun openly as opposed to wearing a gun concealed, how many people were legally carrying that they did not know about in NH? People are armed in are society. Between those who legally carry openly and concealed, who is more of a threat? The Presidents who have been assissinated (if I have my history right) were shot by people who did not wear their gun openly. That would be a statistical fact to be considered.
We don't have any exact info on the set up for the event but as I mentioned earlier the Secret Service generally close down the area for at least a block and only allow people in through the check points who have been cleared. The likelihood that any one made it into the area close enough to the president to take a shot at him with a concealed weapon is virtually nill. From what it says in these stories I'm not sure if the guy was actually within the controled area or not. The Secret Service does not make available any information at all regarding their procedures and strategies so its hard to figure out exactly what went on and where what was without having actually been there. I've also looked a bit for information on what exactly their scope of power and authority is in such situations but I haven't found anything that wasn't just a vague outline of general authority for the Secret Service as a whole.
drankin
Aug14-09, 12:39 AM
We don't have any exact info on the set up for the event but as I mentioned earlier the Secret Service generally close down the area for at least a block and only allow people in through the check points who have been cleared. The likelihood that any one made it into the area close enough to the president to take a shot at him with a concealed weapon is virtually nill. From what it says in these stories I'm not sure if the guy was actually within the controled area or not. The Secret Service does not make available any information at all regarding their procedures and strategies so its hard to figure out exactly what went on and where what was without having actually been there. I've also looked a bit for information on what exactly their scope of power and authority is in such situations but I haven't found anything that wasn't just a vague outline of general authority for the Secret Service as a whole.
You are speculating. If they let an openly armed person in, what makes you think there weren't any people with concealed handguns there? I carry concealed in public regularly. Are you saying someone like me would be turned away but another with a gun in his leg holster would be allowed in??? I don't follow that logic. He was allowed in because he wasn't breaking any laws. Which means that anyone who was licensed to carry concealed would not have been turned away.
I watched an interview with the man. I don't think his intentions were to harm anyone, he had an agenda and wanted to be as dramatic as possible. The gun, like his sign, was a prop.
However, the reality is that someone with a different ideology could have easily taken his gun away from him and done serious harm. Guns and crowds don't generally mix very well - too many variables.
My advice, next time hire a graphic artist to help you put your ideas on a really cool (and big if you like) sign - it's safer.
wildman
Aug17-09, 12:05 AM
Arizona too restrictive on guns? He must live in a different Arizona than I do. They even allow people to carry heat in bars here. There are no restrictions in Arizona worth speaking of.....????
The phrase that he referenced effectively calls for bloodshed.
The phrase on his poster called for watter, not blood.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug17-09, 02:37 AM
The phrase on his poster called for watter, not blood.
Yes and the Tree of Liberty. I doubt that the Tree of Liberty is even any where near there.
Well the original Liberty Tree was just over in Boston, but the Redcoats chopped that down. Any tree can be considered symbolic of liberty though, and back in the early days of the US nearly every town had one. I think the tradition should be revived, at least figuratively if not literally, and that is what I gather the man and was getting at rather than expressing any interest in bloodshed. Had he wanted bloodshed, surely he would have tucked his gun under his clothing and would not have made the sign.
skeptic2
Aug17-09, 01:51 PM
In 1992 when George H. W. Bush was running for president, he spoke outdoors on the campus at Motorola. The area for spectators was cordoned off and to get into the cordoned off area we had to go through metal detectors.
Hans de Vries
Aug18-09, 03:48 AM
Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/art.obama.gun.pool.jpg
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
What next? Gangs of ku klux klan members and white supremacists armed with
loaded guns and assault rifles surrounding the president of the USA intimidating
him out of his right of free speech?
and it's legal?
Gangs of ku klux klan members and white supremacists armed withloaded guns and assault rifles surrounding the president of the USA intimidating
him out of his right of free speech?
Hardly. There's no chance this guy was allowed anywhere near the president. It's probably a good move from Obama not to have these people locked up to keep them sweet.
Of course, it's ridiculous that you should be allowed to carry such a weapon in the middle of the crowded places anyway. You can hardly claim you're acting in self defence unless you're incredibly paranoid. Still, that's another topic.
TheStatutoryApe
Aug18-09, 05:25 AM
It's probably a good move from Obama not to have these people locked up to keep them sweet.
I agree. The best thing a protester can ask for is to be arrested. Then they look like a victim instead of just a weirdo with a sign. These guys not getting hassled or arrested just look like weirdos with guns.
Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/art.obama.gun.pool.jpg
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
What next? Gangs of ku klux klan members and white supremacists armed with
loaded guns and assault rifles surrounding the president of the USA intimidating
him out of his right of free speech?
and it's legal?
How do you possibly make a jump from this particular photo to "Gangs of ku klux klan members and white supremacists" - why not "bus loads of over-worked ACORN workers bused in to rally support - armed with AK's"?
The Secret Service will never allow the type of behavior you described.
drankin
Aug18-09, 09:31 AM
Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/art.obama.gun.pool.jpg
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
What next? Gangs of ku klux klan members and white supremacists armed with
loaded guns and assault rifles surrounding the president of the USA intimidating
him out of his right of free speech?
and it's legal?
Of course it's legal. How are they intimidating him out of his right to free speech? "Watch what you say or we'll shoot ya!". LOL
Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/art.obama.gun.pool.jpg
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
That's awesome. I'm sure most Americans are proud and happy with the fact that this guy can carry that weapon whenever wherever lol but as a Canadian I must say that is messed up.
From the article:
Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles
...really? I mean like come on. I knew America was different and all but like ... wow.
Ivan Seeking
Aug18-09, 12:49 PM
That's awesome. I'm sure most Americans are proud and happy with the fact that this guy can carry that weapon whenever wherever lol but as a Canadian I must say that is messed up.
Its a clear case of "I have the right therefore I choose to abuse it at the expense of responsible gun owners". These guys apparently think they are making some kind of statement. What they are really doing is proving that they are idiots who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.
I didn't think mentally challenged people were supposed to be able to buy a weapon.
I didn't think mentally challenged people were supposed to be able to buy a weapon.
If they put intelligence restrictions on owning weapons in America I'm sure
a) Most of Americans who currently own weapons would not be allowed to.
which in turn leads to
b) MANY people in America would be mad
drankin
Aug18-09, 01:46 PM
Because of the distrust of the current administration, I still can't find any .45 ACP ammo. Everywhere is sold out. People get on waiting lists at places like WalMart and buy everything before it hits the shelves. Damn hordes.
People get on waiting lists at places like WalMart and buy everything before it hits the shelves. Damn hordes.
What, because they're going to go to war with their own government? :uhh: ok..
Ivan Seeking
Aug18-09, 02:01 PM
What, because they're going to go to war with their own government? :uhh: ok..
That is a point that I would defend, actually. That is the ultimate reason for private gun ownership - the last hope in the face of an oppressive government.
The irony is that the Republicans are the ones who have trashed the Constitution - Patriot Act, secret wire taps, refusing to answer to Congress, and so on.
Obama believes in the Constitutional right to private gun ownership.
drankin
Aug18-09, 02:02 PM
What, because they're going to go to war with their own government? :uhh: ok..
No, because they think that someday they won't be able to buy ammo anymore. I never said anyone was going to war. Wow, you sure read into things.
This got me thinking. Personally, I have more issue with a lone gunman than if everyone was openly carrying. Or in this case of the AZ event where there were numerous people carrying.
I think in some places it is culturally/religiously acceptable to carry swords/daggers/other weapons. I wanted to know if those people can legally carry swords/daggers as a symbol of their culture/religion in the US?
Ivan Seeking
Aug18-09, 02:13 PM
No, because they think that someday they won't be able to buy ammo anymore.
The bullet manufacturers are loving it. Look at the up side: It is a bright spot in the economy!
This got me thinking. Personally, I have more issue with a lone gunman than if everyone was openly carrying. Or in this case of the AZ event where there were numerous people carrying.
To me this gets into the limits of the 1st Ammendment. We don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Carrying a weapon into a crowd at a political event, esp one that includes the President, is much like yelling fire. It is provocative and potentially endangers innocent bystanders. If nothing else it could create a panic.
What if some other nut grabbed the gun and began threatening or shooting people?
When I was a kid, we sometimes went hunting with a neighbor who lived a block away. I always got a charge out of walking up the block with my guns. :biggrin: The funny thing is that back then, no one thought twice about a twelve year old openly carrying a high-power rifle or two up the street. Obviously we were going hunting and no one worried about it.
drankin
Aug18-09, 02:21 PM
I think in some places it is culturally/religiously acceptable to carry swords/daggers/other weapons. I wanted to know if those people can legally carry swords/daggers as a symbol of their culture/religion in the US?
That's a good question! Hearsay in WA state is you cannot carry a blade over x inches (I think it was 3", not sure). We have the right to carry firearms but I don't know about blade arms.
That is a point that I would defend, actually. That is the ultimate reason for private gun ownership - the last hope in the face of an oppressive government.
Maybe this was a valid point when the constitution was written, since the government had an army with rifles. But, times have changed. If you want to stop an oppressive government now you will need tanks, planes, nuclear weapons, etc., essentially you will need a private army.
Carrying an assault rifle in a crowded place is either just abusing the fact that you can, or is indicative of a crazy person.
turbo-1
Aug18-09, 02:59 PM
Maybe this was a valid point when the constitution was written, since the government had an army with rifles. But, times have changed. If you want to stop an oppressive government now you will need tanks, planes, nuclear weapons, etc., essentially you will need a private army.The situation was forced on the Colonists by the British, who made every able-bodied man train in militias and often pressed them into service. England did not have enough soldiers in the Colonies to fight the French, so they made the Colonists fight for them. They also made the Colonists maintain armories with weapons, powder, patches, ball, etc, and it's these very armaments that the Colonists used against the British, who had to resort to hiring German mercenaries to fight their battles.
It was very important to the US's founding fathers not to allow the population be disarmed - they lived through times in which the value of an armed populace was proven. And you don't have to have superior (advanced) weaponry to bring an Army to its knees. Did the Viet Kong have helicopter gunships, jets, air-to-ground missiles or nuclear weapons? No. Still they did well for themselves.
seycyrus
Aug18-09, 03:01 PM
The government has always enjoyed a disparity in weapons, this has never been successfully used as a point to argue for the banning of weapons.
One of course would not directly engage a standing army with assault rifles and handguns, but their possession would allow for guerilla tactics which would comprise the initial resistance.
I think the protestor carrying the rifle was within his rights, but was clearly asking for trouble.
it is also my opinion that the person who conceals his weapon is a greater threat to the president than one who openly displays his weapon.
Maybe this was a valid point when the constitution was written, since the government had an army with rifles. But, times have changed. If you want to stop an oppressive government now you will need tanks, planes, nuclear weapons, etc., essentially you will need a private army.
The British government had far more than rifles, and so did our Revolutionaries to a lesser extent. Our Bill of Rights reflects this too; acknowledging an unrestricted right to arms in general, not simply firearms.
Carrying an assault rifle in a crowded place is either just abusing the fact that you can, or is indicative of a crazy person.
I argue the crazy people are the ones who want to maintain a system were they fear anyone in the vicinity of our President with a gun, and slander those exercising their liberty to do so. If you don't like it, the rational thing to do is propose a law against it. However, I'd much rather we work towards a system were our President serves the will of the majority, and does so with respect to the rights of all. With such a system no one could accomplish anything notable by killing our President anyway, as whoever replaces him will follow the same course.
drankin
Aug18-09, 03:25 PM
The bullet manufacturers are loving it.
To me this gets into the limits of the 1st Ammendment. We don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Carrying a weapon into a crowd at a political event, esp one that includes the President, is much like yelling fire. It is provocative and potentially endangers innocent bystanders. If nothing else it could create a panic.
What if some other nut grabbed the gun and began threatening or shooting people?
When I was a kid, we sometimes went hunting with a neighbor who lived a block away. I always got a charge out of walking up the block with my guns. :biggrin: The funny thing is that back then, no one thought twice about a twelve year old openly carrying a high-power rifle or two up the street. Obviously we were going hunting and no one worried about it.
Yeah, perceptions have changed. People don't trust each other like they used to.
turbo-1
Aug18-09, 03:31 PM
Yeah, perceptions have changed. People don't trust each other like they used to.Depends where you live. Around here, people walk up and down the roads headed for hunting spots with their rifles and shotguns out. Also, if I grab my Glock 20 and walk up the road, neighbors know that I'll be haded for another neighbor's pistol range to practice. Luckily 10mm Auto is not a popular cartridge (quite a handful!), so it's relatively easy to find.
drankin
Aug18-09, 03:42 PM
Depends where you live. Around here, people walk up and down the roads headed for hunting spots with their rifles and shotguns out. Also, if I grab my Glock 20 and walk up the road, neighbors know that I'll be haded for another neighbor's pistol range to practice. Luckily 10mm Auto is not a popular cartridge (quite a handful!), so it's relatively easy to find.
It's pretty much the city folks. They don't even know their neighbors let alone trust them.
Ivan Seeking
Aug18-09, 03:49 PM
Depends where you live. Around here, people walk up and down the roads headed for hunting spots with their rifles and shotguns out...
It's much the same here but this area is rural. The gang problem in Los Angeles is what changed things there. Back when Tsu and I first started living together, in Van Nuys, California, things were going downhill quickly. It finally reached a point where I would stand by the window with my shotgun and make sure she got to her car, when she got called into the hospital at night.
Every year, just before deer season opens, this place can start sounding like warzone when people start test firing their weapons. All of the lots around here [with a few exceptions] are five acres minimum, so everyone can shoot on their own property. We hear plenty of big guns with rapid fire mixed in from time to time as well. One year it sounded like someone was firing a 50 cal machine gun!
The situation was forced on the Colonists by the British, who made every able-bodied man train in militias and often pressed them into service. England did not have enough soldiers in the Colonies to fight the French, so they made the Colonists fight for them. They also made the Colonists maintain armories with weapons, powder, patches, ball, etc, and it's these very armaments that the Colonists used against the British, who had to resort to hiring German mercenaries to fight their battles.
I don't need a history lesson! In fact, the war was not fought as "England", but as the "Kingdom of Great Britain", which incorporated England and Scotland (after the treaty of union around 1700).
It was very important to the US's founding fathers not to allow the population be disarmed - they lived through times in which the value of an armed populace was proven.
Actually, I don't think that's true. Sure, they lived through times where the armament of the population helped them overthrow an oppressive government, but if it wasn't for the fact that the British had to fight a war on many fronts, or if the French and the Dutch hadn't helped, the "Americans" wouldn't have managed it. Still, I'll give you the point that the armament was proven to be useful.
Did the Viet Kong have helicopter gunships, jets, air-to-ground missiles or nuclear weapons? No. Still they did well for themselves.
The VC didn't have helicopters etc.., but they did have anti aircraft missiles, bombs, machine guns, artillery, tanks. However, you know as well as I do, that there is little analogy between a guerrilla army fighting foreigners on their home turf (namely, jungles, and terrain that the US troops are really not used to), and US citizens turning on their own government on home turf.
However, I'd much rather we work towards a system were our President serves the will of the majority, and does so with respect to the rights of all. With such a system no one could accomplish anything notable by killing our President anyway, as whoever replaces him will follow the same course.
Well, we can all dream!
It's pretty much the city folks. They don't even know their neighbors let alone trust them.
On a related note; back in my mother's home town I knew a family who owned a cannon from the Civil War, which they fired off every Fourth of July. While it is illegal to buy, sell, or even transfer across state lines anything of the sort now, theirs was handed down though their generations from well before our government created any such laws. Hence, they were completely within their rights to own it and use it whenever they liked, as long as they did so with respect to the rights of others.
drankin
Aug18-09, 04:16 PM
On a related note; back in my mother's home town I knew a family who owned a cannon from the Civil War, which they fired off every Fourth of July. While it is illegal to buy, sell, or even transfer across state lines anything of the sort now, theirs was handed down though their generations from well before our government created any such laws. Hence, they were completely within their rights to own it and use it whenever they liked, as long as they did so with respect to the rights of others.
Wow! Now thats a gun. I wonder if there is a law against building one for personal use. Wouldn't be hard to build.
Just found this: http://www.thewoodenboatschool.com/boatbuilding/bronze-cannon.php
Well, we can all dream!
Is that to suggest you prefer to embrace a system where our President serves the will of special interests rather than the majority and/or favors the rights of some over others?
Just found this: http://www.thewoodenboatschool.com/boatbuilding/bronze-cannon.php
That looks remarkably like the one I've seen fired, though obviously much newer.
Ivan Seeking
Aug18-09, 04:37 PM
Maybe this was a valid point when the constitution was written, since the government had an army with rifles. But, times have changed. If you want to stop an oppressive government now you will need tanks, planes, nuclear weapons, etc., essentially you will need a private army..
In fact, what we have learned all too well in the ME, and esp in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that we cannot win a war with planes and bombs. It requires door-to-door fighting. I once fell for the argument that you reference, but we have seen that it is simply not true. A well-armed public is in fact an army.
We all know that winning in Iraq meant winning hearts and minds. Were "the people" to side with the insurgents, we would have no hope of winning.
To further this point; if the ME had the anywhere close to the planes and bombs we do, no one would have even thought of trying to trick the public into invading it in the first place.
It seems we've beaten the OP question to death and have moved on to more general topics.
vBulletin® v3.7.6, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.