News Guy carries firearm while attending town hall meeting

[WhoWee]

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]

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...?

 

[kyleb]

The phrase that he referenced effectively calls for bloodshed.

The phrase on his poster called for watter, not blood.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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]

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]

Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.htmlWhat 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?

 

[cristo]

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]

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.

 

[WhoWee]

Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"

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 into rally support - armed with AK's"?

The Secret Service will never allow the type of behavior you described.

 

[drankin]

Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"

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

 

[Sorry!]

Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- "and it's legal"

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]

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.

 

[Sorry!]

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]

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.

 

[cristo]

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? ok..

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What, because they're going to go to war with their own government? 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]

What, because they're going to go to war with their own government? 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.

 

[rootX]

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]

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. 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]

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.

 

[cristo]

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]

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]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[cristo]

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!

 

[kyleb]

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]

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 that's 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"

 

[kyleb]

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?

 

[kyleb]

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]

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.

 

[kyleb]

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.

 

[Evo]

It seems we've beaten the OP question to death and have moved on to more general topics.