Men tote assault rifles at Obama event

[John C.]

Again, it's some of you that are missing my point. Permitting scores of people to show up with guns at a Presidential rally is a real (not just a theoretical) security issue. We know this because our history over the last 40 years has more than one instance where a President (or a Presidential candidate) has been the target of an assassination attempt.

The distinction between open carry and concealed carry is irrelevant. Do you really think it makes a difference whether an assassin has his shirt tucked in so you can see that he has a holstered handgun, as opposed to pulling his shirt out so that you can't see that he's carrying?

 

[Lynne]

Again, it's some of you that are missing my point. Permitting scores of people to show up with guns at a Presidential rally is a real (not just a theoretical) security issue. We know this because our history over the last 40 years has more than one instance where a President (or a Presidential candidate) has been the target of an assassination attempt.

The distinction between open carry and concealed carry is irrelevant. Do you really think it makes a difference whether an assassin has his shirt tucked in so you can see that he has a holstered handgun, as opposed to pulling his shirt out so that you can't see that he's carrying?

We'll just have to agree to disagree John. You aren't going to convince anyone that's disagreed with you and we aren't going to convince you either.

 

[Admin]

Again, it's some of you that are missing my point. Permitting scores of people to show up with guns at a Presidential rally is a real (not just a theoretical) security issue. We know this because our history over the last 40 years has more than one instance where a President (or a Presidential candidate) has been the target of an assassination attempt.

The distinction between open carry and concealed carry is irrelevant. Do you really think it makes a difference whether an assassin has his shirt tucked in so you can see that he has a holstered handgun, as opposed to pulling his shirt out so that you can't see that he's carrying?

So you're saying that by not allowing guns at protests the president won't be shot? Or you're saying by allowing guns there is a greater chance the president will be shot?

I am having a very hard time figuring out your logic. Either you intend to murder someone or you don't. The fact that law abiding citizens are carrying guns around the president doesn't mean he's in more danger. The person with the intent on murder is either present or not present. Guns in the A.O. have nothing to do with the danger the president might be facing.

 

[tele_mark]

Again, it's some of you that are missing my point. Permitting scores of people to show up with guns at a Presidential rally is a real (not just a theoretical) security issue. We know this because our history over the last 40 years has more than one instance where a President (or a Presidential candidate) has been the target of an assassination attempt.

The distinction between open carry and concealed carry is irrelevant. Do you really think it makes a difference whether an assassin has his shirt tucked in so you can see that he has a holstered handgun, as opposed to pulling his shirt out so that you can't see that he's carrying?

From the article I posted a link to:

Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a "relatively new phenomenon." But he said the president's safety is not being jeopardized.

"We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms," he said. "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered. These people weren't ticketed for events and wouldn't have been allowed inside and weren't in a position outside to offer a threat." The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said.

The Secret Service disagrees with you and the Brady Campaign.

 

[Bob P]

JFK
RFK
Ford (unsuccessful)
Reagan (unsuccessful)
George Wallace - while running for President (crippled for life).

That's just U.S. politicians on U.S. soil who were either President or running for President. Include U.S. political figures who were not running for President and you can add MLK, Jr. and Malcolm X. If we include celebrities, or political figures from foreign countries, the list expands considerably - i.e. John Lennon, Pope John Paul, Anwar Sadat. This is just off the top of my head. If you don't think this has been a problem over the last forty years you must not get a lot of news.

As to whether the assassins were carrying legally, that's irrelevant because this isn't a debate about whether people should be able to own guns, or even whether they should be able to carry in certain circumstances, but whether open carry at political rallies makes sense. The problem of course is that you can't distinguish those carrying legally from those carrying illegally just by looking at them.

Also, simply because someone is carrying legally doesn't insure that they are not a threat.

It really boggles my mind that some of the same people who were insisting that continuing to fight a war in Iraq, and abridging out civil liberties at home were vitally necessary to our national security and to keep us safe here at home are now suggesting that when we have a democrat in the White House its perfectly ok for people to bring their AR15's, high power rifle, etc. to Presidential rallies.

Finally, to put this in historical perspective, in the late 60's members of the Black Panther Party began openly (and legally) carrying guns in the street. I wonder how many of those that are defending this practice when its being done by conservatives who oppose Obama would have felt the same way about the Black Panther party. Or suppose large groups of from Farrakhan's Nation of Islam start showing up at Republican political rallies?

You miss Timber's point. All of the murders or attempted murders you cite were committed by either snipers from a hidden perch or by people with a hidden/concealed weapon. None of the instances you cite were carried out by people openly displaying weapons prior to doing what they did - with the exception of Sadat, but that was a military coup and a totally different circumstance.

Like it or not, it was a ballsy protest and yes, no different from the Panther's in the 60's or the Panther's earlier in this very decade protesting Bush. It grabbed media attention, which is, after all, what protest is all about.

The man had a gun. He was OUTSIDE the building. I would be surprised to learn that he, at any point, had LOS to the Pres. I don't see how the Pres was in dangered by this action.

The distinction between open carry and concealed carry is irrelevant. Do you really think it makes a difference whether an assassin has his shirt tucked in so you can see that he has a holstered handgun, as opposed to pulling his shirt out so that you can't see that he's carrying?

Of COURSE it makes a difference! If the potential 'assassin' is openly displaying his weapon, you're NOT going to let him get w/in lethal range of his target & thus the person you're protecting is safer. It's usually the UNKNOWN threat that takes the target down.

 

[Mike S]

John, please present evidence that citizens have NOT been CCing at presidential events throughout our history as a country.

Waiting.....

 

[Kaos116]

..... or even whether they should be able to carry in certain circumstances.....

How about carrying 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, anywhere and everywhere?

Nice how you slid that in there.

 

[RI_John]

This quote is from the WP article Tele_Mark posted-

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality."

....

"What Gibbs said is wrong," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It's crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody."

THIS is why the OC'ing is a good thing! It's making the Brady Bunch look like whining asshats to the general public (they always look that way to me)

The Secret Service doesn't care, the local LE doesn't care, and the White House doesn't care! The only people that care are the doucheface liberal antis!

 

[beaker07]

THIS is why the OC'ing is a good thing! It's making the Brady Bunch look like whining asshats to the general public (they always look that way to me)

The Secret Service doesn't care, the local LE doesn't care, and the White House doesn't care! The only people that care are the doucheface liberal antis!

I disagree. I think that the general public who doesn't have a license will agree with the Brady position that in a politcally and likely emotionally charged environment people with guns is a bad thing.

People are more likely to default to the "safe" position that less harm will come from shouting than from someone "popping caps". We are so conditioned by TV and movies that people only have guns to solve problems and use them. No one carries a gun and doesn't use it! That isn't exciting at all.

The general public is likely to think that the White House, LEO, Secret Service, all are forced to say what they are due to laws, but in reality they feel like the people having those guns is a bad thing. (I suspect in the case of the WH that is true...)

I'm not saying the people here were wrong to carry, but I don't think it will be generally accepted and taken as a good thing by the general public. I expect they will be scared of the dangerous gun people with their machine guns and such and will want laws to protect them.

 

[tele_mark]

I disagree. I think that the general public who doesn't have a license will agree with the Brady position that in a politcally and likely emotionally charged environment people with guns is a bad thing.

People are more likely to default to the "safe" position that less harm will come from shouting than from someone "popping caps". We are so conditioned by TV and movies that people only have guns to solve problems and use them. No one carries a gun and doesn't use it! That isn't exciting at all.

The general public is likely to think that the White House, LEO, Secret Service, all are forced to say what they are due to laws, but in reality they feel like the people having those guns is a bad thing. (I suspect in the case of the WH that is true...)

I'm not saying the people here were wrong to carry, but I don't think it will be generally accepted and taken as a good thing by the general public. I expect they will be scared of the dangerous gun people with their machine guns and such and will want laws to protect them.

Damn those laws the Government has to adhere to! We must do something about them!

BTW, I think I just heard Derek's head explode.

 

[Lynne]

Any time a poll is taken on the 2nd Amendment or if more gun control is needed - the answers are always the same. No, we don't need more gun control and there's nothing wrong with people having and bearing arms.

And I thought that sound was Derek's head.

 

[John C.]

You forgot Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and GW Bush. All successful and unsuccessful attempts were committed with illegally employed, concealed weapons. Never were any of these Presidents threatened by citizens legally and openly carrying firearms. But I'd hardly expect a knee-jerk reactionist troll to know anything about the history of this country.

Didn't forget. Original statement was in the last 50 years ... that excludes Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, T.R., FDR and Truman. Nixon was a foiled attempt that literally never got off the ground. Clinton and Bush we can argue about how serious a threat each attempt was. Also, said this list was literally off the top of my head. I have no doubt that if I really thought about it and did an internet search I could find come up with a longer list of politicians/celebrities. In fact, while writing this just thought of another U.S. politician, killed by a U.S. citizen, on U.S. soil, with a gun, in the last 50 years - Harvey Milk. In this case I suspect, although I do not know for a fact, that his killer was a licensed gun owner. BTW - this is the case that became famous for the so-called Twinkie defense. His lawyer claimed that the defendant wasn't in his right mind because of the Twinkies and other junk food he ate. Oh and calling me a knee-jerk reactionary troll who knows nothing about history simply because I disagree with you certainly elevates the debate.

 

[RI_John]

Oh and calling me a knee-jerk reactionary troll who knows nothing about history simply because I disagree with you certainly elevates the debate.

Then elevate beyond saying "It's scary"

One argument that a person might make could be "Political rallies tend to bring out mentally unstable people and one of crazies might try to grab a lawfully possessed weapon from a law abiding citizen, so therefore only CCW should be allowed", not that I agree with that statement, but at least it's debatable.

But, as Derek pointed out to you earlier, anyone interested in killing a politician won't be open carrying, and if they were, since they are 1/4 mile from the politician surrounded by police and other agents, how far would a person get if they decided to die and pull out a weapon and start running in the direction of the politician? 2 feet? 5 feet? 15 feet?

And, as Derek pointed out, an assassin will either be there or he won't be there. What difference do laws that only affect law abiding citizens have to do with assassins???? Do you believe on any level that a person bent on killing the POTUS would be deterred by a law restricting open carrying???? And if not, then why are you trying to affect the behavior of people whom we agree are law abiding?

 

[Nickle]

Again, it's some of you that are missing my point. Permitting scores of people to show up with guns at a Presidential rally is a real (not just a theoretical) security issue. We know this because our history over the last 40 years has more than one instance where a President (or a Presidential candidate) has been the target of an assassination attempt.

The distinction between open carry and concealed carry is irrelevant. Do you really think it makes a difference whether an assassin has his shirt tucked in so you can see that he has a holstered handgun, as opposed to pulling his shirt out so that you can't see that he's carrying?

No, we aren't missing your point at all. We just simply disagree with it, totally.

Your logic is seriously flawed, your facts incorrect or irrelevant and you generally don't have a clue on the subject.

Guns in the A.O. have nothing to do with the danger the president might be facing.

Derek, I'll have to disagree with that one.

The POTUS was in all likelyhood in LESS danger because of the guy toting the AR. The fact that an armed citizen was there, ready to go, was a sign that anybody seriously considering offing Obama would likely get caught, and certainly would have trouble shooting their way out.

Of course, the media and the anti-gun moonbats (even the FUDD's) would never admit to that one, would they?

After all, we do know what happened to Lee harvey Oswald, right?

John, you're kind of slow, I'll spell it out for you. He was shot and killed by Jack Ruby, while LHO was under police control.

And, no I know LHO didn't kill Kennedy (at least, he didn't fire all 3 shots, especially the head shot). Known since the day it happened. I won't elaborate, but I can say that it was clear enough that a 9 year old could figure it out. Suffice it to say that a Carcano doesn't work that fast, and bullets don't do u-turns before hitting the target. I was pretty smart at 9.

Matin Luther King, on the other hand was shot by an irate Klansman.

I also know a bit more here than you would think. Considering the son of the shooter in that case used to be my brother-in-law. Never got to know him that well, my wife's sister didn't stay married to him for long, and the kid is now dead (after the divorce), crashed his truck (a semi).

 

[John C.]

OK - with all the huffing and puffing that's been going on in response to my post, one point that makes sense and is relevant - poster who points out that person carrying was apparently nowhere near POTUS and therefore his presence with a rifle wasn't a security risk. At least that post responds to one of my original points, and is based on facts rather than a personal attack on whether I'm a troll or completely ignorant of history.

However, although the posters point is a valid one, to the extent that his presence, and the presence of others appearing at these events with guns takes up security resources that could otherwise be used to protect the President, I continue to believe that there is an important security issue. Moreover, to me the combination of protestors and guns is not a good thing for several reasons. A group of people vocally disagreeing with you can already be somewhat intimidating. An armed group of people disagreeing with you has even greater potential for intimidation. Thus, while you absolutely have the right to express your opinion, you do not have the right to try and shout down or intimidate someone who disagrees with you from expressing theirs.

Again, my point is that there are some circumstances where open carry does not make sense. Political rallies and demonstrations are one of those occasions. I would have the same objection if busloads of Yankee fans arrived at Fenway wearing their team's uniform and carrying guns. So one more time, for me this isn't an issue of whether people have a right to own guns. They do and that is a good thing. It isn't an issue of whether they have the right to concealed carry. They do and that is a good thing. It isn't even whether they should have a right to carry openly. Rather, its whether there are some circumstances, such as political rallies, where open carry doesn't make sense for a number of reasons, and where insisting on exercising our right to bear arms is likely to set our cause back, not help us. If that makes me a knee-jerk liberal troll, so be it.

 

[Admin]

John I love how you and the other liberals just assume that hordes of people are going to show up armed and get in to shoot outs. It's simply not going to happen. If you even remotely think it's going to you have some serious issues to work out.

 

[RI_John]

John I love how you and the other liberals just assume that hordes of people are going to show up armed and get in to shoot outs. It's simply not going to happen. If you even remotely think it's going to you have some serious issues to work out.

An armed society is a polite society, so they say! I know when I go into, say a gun shop, and the employees are open carrying, it doesn't make me want to fight them or rile me up. If anything, seeing a weapon in the open reminds me to be wicked nice!

 

[beaker07]

I went to college in DC and was fortunate enough to see Bill Clinton's 2nd inauguration (despite any political leanings, its pretty cool seeing the event). I can assure you that some guy packing a rifle isn't wasting resources watching him. They are watching everyone anyway.

Having 100 extra people who are theoretically supporters is a larger risk than a guy with a rifle. Showing up looking like a bad guy isn't the standard way people would act if they wanted to do harm, its a bit obvious.

And believe me, they notice people VERY well. There was a guy in front of us as we waited for the presidential limo to pass us by that was kinda weird and within about 3-4 minutes some gentlemen came by to "talk" to him. Didn't see him again...

1 dude making a statement in public with his rifle out poses no loss in manpower as compared to 1 dude standing there with no visible weaponry/explosives.

 

[Gonzo]

And, no I know LHO didn't kill Kennedy (at least, he didn't fire all 3 shots, especially the head shot). Known since the day it happened. I won't elaborate, but I can say that it was clear enough that a 9 year old could figure it out. Suffice it to say that a Carcano doesn't work that fast, and bullets don't do u-turns before hitting the target. I was pretty smart at 9.

 

[Admin]

Oh lord, how did I miss that?

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Again, my point is that there are some circumstances where open carry does not make sense. Political rallies and demonstrations are one of those occasions. I would have the same objection if busloads of Yankee fans arrived at Fenway wearing their team's uniform and carrying guns. So one more time, for me this isn't an issue of whether people have a right to own guns. They do and that is a good thing. It isn't an issue of whether they have the right to concealed carry. They do and that is a good thing. It isn't even whether they should have a right to carry openly. Rather, its whether there are some circumstances, such as political rallies, where open carry doesn't make sense for a number of reasons, and where insisting on exercising our right to bear arms is likely to set our cause back, not help us.

Why are political rallies off limits? By that rational, you can start limiting someones Second Amendment rights whenever you believed it was not appropriate. Furthermore, our founding fathers were armed during their meetings in 1776 and I do not remember them shooting the place up when they disagreed with one another.

And furthermore, your logic is completely flawed on the Red Sox Yankees CRAP. Please, once you bring that out as an argument, you truly show you are not at all with it. If you were going to get into a fight over a freaking ballgame, you never should be carrying in the first place.

Your problem is that you do not trust your common man. That is OK: Neither do I. And that is why I carry. However, you believe that by carrying, you will become a "monster" through rage and mob rule. That unfortunately is your own deluded twist on this whole issue. It has been proven time in and time out, that the citizens who carry are the most law abiding group in the entire country.

I suggest you read this:
Gun Facts

However, although the posters point is a valid one, to the extent that his presence, and the presence of others appearing at these events with guns takes up security resources that could otherwise be used to protect the President, I continue to believe that there is an important security issue. Moreover, to me the combination of protestors and guns is not a good thing for several reasons. A group of people vocally disagreeing with you can already be somewhat intimidating. An armed group of people disagreeing with you has even greater potential for intimidation. Thus, while you absolutely have the right to express your opinion, you do not have the right to try and shout down or intimidate someone who disagrees with you from expressing theirs.

Armed or not, can we all agree people can get hurt in a protest? Armed or not, if I am a 6' 8" jacked white dude with tattoos all over, can one say I would be an intimidating force to be reckoned with if I was yelling at you? So, by my looks alone, should I be barred from attending such rallies? Or my views? Or the fact that I wanted to openly carry (as allowed by law)?

Furthermore, I am going to go out on a limb and say that the Secret Service did not have to divert ANY resources away from the POTUS: As a matter of fact, that would never happen. I challenge to have you credibly cite a resource that indicated they were required to shift their protection due to the open carry people in the crowd.


In conclusion, you need to take a step back and realize what you are saying, and what you are insinuating by your statements.

 

[SSShooter]

However, although the posters point is a valid one, to the extent that his presence, and the presence of others appearing at these events with guns takes up security resources that could otherwise be used to protect the President, I continue to believe that there is an important security issue.

So do you think if nobody is in the crowd is openly carrying, the SS doesn't watch the crowd and instead has extra security on the POTUS himself? Do you have any concept of how security works?

Yes, the guys carrying were watched by SS. And they would have been watched if they were not openly carrying too - just like the rest of the crowd was watched. In fact, the rest of the crowd was a bigger threat because they were at unknown threat levels compared to the OCers which are known.

And in any case, the POTUS had his own security within the further secured perimeter which was absolutely NOT reduced so that some of them could watch a guy legally openly carrying outside the main venue.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed, leaving your argument essentially "guns at a group gathering are bad because they scare me." That's ok though, the PD will be there to protect you as soon as you dial 3 simple digits and all will be good.

 

[ScottS]

I would have the same objection if busloads of Yankee fans arrived at Fenway wearing their team's uniform and carrying guns.

Want to know how I can tell you're not a gun owner? Real gun owners would know that gun-owning Yankee fans and gun-owning Sox fans have more in common than gun-owning and non-gun-owning Sox fans do. Gun-owning Sox fans who see Yankee fans show up openly carrying at Fenway would think "Cool! Gun owners exercising their rights," followed closely by, "Hey, look! That guy's got an AUG. That's like, $5k. I had a chance to get one back in the day for less than $1500. God, I wish I could afford one of those." and not "Oh, the noes! Those scary people have scary guns!"

[Note: this scenario takes place in some alternate-universe state called Bizarro Massachusetts, where all the men are strong, all the women are beautiful, and guns are legal.]

 

[John C.]

John I love how you and the other liberals just assume that hordes of people are going to show up armed and get in to shoot outs. It's simply not going to happen. If you even remotely think it's going to you have some serious issues to work out.

Well, unless I'm misreading some of these posts, many people think this is a good idea and that all us gun owners should start showing up to political rallies openly carrying. Again, my point is that crowds of politically charged people and guns aren't a good combination. In fact, its kind of funny that, as I type this from my office in downtown Boston, if I look out the window I can literally see the sight of the Boston massacre. So I do think there is some historical precedent for my concern about groups of politically charged people becoming unruly.

In fact, it is worth noting that John Adams, who defended the British soldiers, argued that they were justified in opening fire because the mob was threatening them and they were acting in self-defense. And this politically charged mob was a group of colonists armed only with snowballs. Seems to me that Adams would have had an even stronger argument if a couple of dozen colonists were brandishing muskets. But of course we all know that John Adams was really a liberal British sympathizer who doesn't understand anything about the second amendment and clearly has some "serious issues to work out".

 

[lupis42]

And this politically charged mob was a group of colonists armed only with snowballs.

It's been a few years since I read any original sources, but IIRC, they were throwing rocks, not snowballls.

Seems to me that Adams would have had an even stronger argument if a couple of dozen colonists were brandishing muskets.

If a colonists were pointing muskets at the British, sure. But many of the colonists probably *were* wearing muskets. It was fairly common then. Carrying != Brandishing, no matter what some MA CLEOs would have you believe.

 

[richc]

Personally I feel way safer among a group of armed, open carrying, law abiding gun owners than I do in a group of strangers who may or may not be carrying, legally or illegally.

YMMV.

Rich

 

[Nickle]

Boston Massacre is what you're referring to.

Even Paul Revere spoke up for the British troops.

Apples to Oranges, and you know it. That was a totally different scenario, and the Colonists provoked the attack. I didn't see the guy toting the AR provoke anything, and the people around him were all smiles and happy.

Take a subtle hint, don't argue Revolutionary War History with me, you'll lose.

Sometimes I wish Scrivener was back. He'd take you to task for flawed arguments.

Try again. Also know this was a totally irrelevant response.

Look, you've got to be a gun fearing FUDD. Sorry, but your pattern of argument clearly shows that.

So, when do we say "enough is enough" on our rights?

When?

You aren't easy with it, but the Secret Service, the White House staff and Arizona law enforcement is. I'll wager they know what they're doing.

Truth is, we agree with them, too.

The situation that happened was totally legal to boot.

The only people I see that have a problem with this are you, panty-waisted liberal morons and the "Brady Bunch". For being a member of a gun forum, I would surely choose better company, if you're going to put an argument forth.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Well, unless I'm misreading some of these posts, many people think this is a good idea and that all us gun owners should start showing up to political rallies openly carrying. Again, my point is that crowds of politically charged people and guns aren't a good combination. In fact, its kind of funny that, as I type this from my office in downtown Boston, if I look out the window I can literally see the sight of the Boston massacre. So I do think there is some historical precedent for my concern about groups of politically charged people becoming unruly.

This is YOUR opinion. Where has it been that you can state that a group of LAW ABIDING armed men are by means DANGEROUS when they group together. I call that the safest place on earth to be. For you, you think this is some sort of catastrophe in the making...

And by the way, the Boston Massacre... It was the British Troops that open fired on unarmed citizens protesting the taxation of the Colonies (Townshend Acts): Some of which were throwing objects at the soldiers. As a matter of fact, the soldiers heard "FIRE!" from some of the people protesting, and hence they believed the order was given and they did so.

So please, better check your facts before you really start sounding like an ID10t.

 

[gene]

From and earlier post!
I suppose the liberals and the media prefer these folks carry their AK's to events as they remain faithfully eyes wide shut!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-sh...l-gun-brandishing-leftist-black-panthers-2000

 

[crak]

What's more American than walking softly and carrying a big stick?