There's always Cooley. :p

And he was carrying a gun because.......?

That does raise an interesting question, doesn't it?

Indeed.

The more interesting question is why that gun didn't merit news coverage while the one in question in this thread does.

I think that's obvious:

Her friend, who carried a gun near the President, did not want any harm to come to President Bush.

You, however, who made comments on a message board, obviously would have been ok with harm done to President Obama.

Can't you see it?

And her friend was very special.

You forgot that part.

LOL.. Despite KSigKid and DS's very insightful (and spot on) answers, I'll offer a few different reasons:

• Because it wasn't a semi-automatic rifle over the shoulder. You've got to admit, that's a bit more in-your-face, a bit more provocative, than a sidearm in a holster.
• Because (perhaps) the speech DI's friend went to wasn't a speech that drew a lot of coverage/attention to begin with.
• Because (perhaps) the speech DI's friend went to wasn't given in the context of the town-hall meetings of the last few weeks and the near-crazy (and really angry) rhetoric that has surrounded the health care debate in recent weeks.

Kevin, I think your obvious desire to see harm come to anyone who supports health care reform is causing you to see vast MSM conspiracies behind every target. [/jest]

At the time he was working for a firearm store and so he always carried his gun on him when he was out and about running errands on his lunch break.

I don't even see why you feel like you have to offer these reasons. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would understand why THIS weapon would draw media coverage as opposed to the hangdun my friend was carrying in his holster. Kevin's question concerning that is really just absurd.

It isn't about "getting under people's skin." I'm simply calling it like I see it.

yeah..I always keep a gun while I run errands....there is still no reason that you are making apparent as to why he was at a Bush (or anybody) speech with a firearm that makes what you said relevant to this discussion.

Ummm...if you see above, in one of my posts there are 2 different people who went armed to these rallies...however, the gent with the sidearm was interviewed...so...pound for pound, he got more coverage.

heh.

So was KSigkid. ;)

It's quite relevant in that it shows that the secret service did not allow him to remain in the area for security purposes. So one has to wonder why they allowed it in this instance. Security may get more intense for a President, but it won't get any more lax than the basics.


As for your sarcastic comment about him having it while he was running errands, it is not unheard of for people if they are used to carrying something every day and there is an instance where they are supposed to take it off and they forget to would sit here and try to act as though that is bizarre just shows that you want to be difficult.

And it is hypocrisy isn't it? To do the very thing you accuse me of doing?

So he forgot that he was going to be in the vicinity of the President and forgot to take his gun off?

I'm not being difficult, just trying to see the relevance of what you had to say in the greater body of the thread.


If you answering that is difficult, I will leave you be for now.

I have already answered that. I'm not sure why you are still experiencing confusion or why you have difficulty seeing the relevance.

And like I said, when he went out to see the president, it was a matter of just standing outside to catch a glimpse as bush left. So yes, he forgot to leave the gun in the car. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? :confused:

Your friend carrying a gun to a get a glimpse of Bush and just so happened to forget to remove it = No relevance to this topic whatsoever.



people who purposefully carry guns to protest their rights to bear arms = Relevance.

get it?

No, it's not. I haven't accused you of doing anything. I have accused KSigKid of doing what you said you were doing -- calling it like he sees it.

It was relevant with respect to the point that I was talking about. :rolleyes:

Many people who carry a gun on them do it just because they can...they're strong believers in the right to carry and feel that if that right is taken for granted, no one will miss it when it's gone. Anyway, the 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the rights of people to protect themselves against the government. Maybe he was carrying the gun to protect himself against the President, eh? ;)

You're right, but DS was deliberately being difficult. I stated that this friend worked for a firearm store, was used to having his gun holstered on his belt all day, and forgot to take it off. He definitely believes in his right to carry, but at that particular time, he wasn't carrying it just because he could. He was on lunch break from work and trying to catch a quick glimpse of the president. The point I was originally making was that he was asked by the secret service to leave when they saw the gun, and so I didn't understand why these men in Arizona weren't asked to leave the area with their guns.

It might have been the number of people carrying. Also Obama might have told them not to. I'm these guys were being watched like hawks the entire the President was in the open.

Peppy

I got that part just fine... I am cool with that, but in the point that DI was attempting to make, it bears no relevance on the fact that you had people who deliberatly chose to arm themselves and ALSO PROMINENTLY DISPLAY said arms at a protest.

THEY.WANTED.THE.ATTENTION.


That's a whole helluvalot different than someone who was carrying their firearm like most people carry hoiuse keys.

Her friend was not there protesting anything. The person was there just because they wanted a glimpse of the president....that doesn't have anything to do with the main idea of the thread.

DI

And if I was being so dayumed difficult, why keep trying? You know better.

Unless your lil friend works in Arizona or NH or some jurisdiction similar to what happened above and had a beef with being asked to leave...he certainly at that point had a right to protest.

You're right.

I did kind of wonder if maybe Obama did tell them not to. But that really shouldn't have mattered because JFK told the secret service what not to do and we know what happened to him. KWIM? Secret service agents often talk about how sometimes they have to go against what a president wants when security is at issue.
:)

Not really no. What happened to President Kennedy was a freak one in a million shot. I'm sure the crowd had USSS personnel under cover prepared to stop them the second they drew their firearms.

Because the story is so stupid as to be hilariously irrelevant . . . to the point that it feels contrived?

Thanks!

So he wasn't just in the vicinity, like the guy with rifle in Phoenix. If he was close enough to "catch a quick glimpse" he was also close enough to fire a shot. That, I'm guessing, is why the secret service took interest.

The guy in Phoenix was not all that far away. He was close enough to fire a shot.

Not even close. ;)

It wasn't all that freakish. He told them not to put the top up on the car. They complied. He got killed. It doesn't take that long, undercover people or not.

So you can make the shot that a bunch of professional snipers tried to recreate and fail? The building Oswald fired from was not cleared because it wasn't really a good location to hit a moving target.

Where did you read that? The reports I read all said he was outside the convention center while Obama was inside. No report I have seen has mentioned whether he was where he could be near the president as he arrive at or left the convention center.

Per the article linked in the opening post, the secret service said that the guy with the rifle "was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to" enter the site they were controlling for the president. Thus, they were not concerned and left it for local police to handle as they usually would.

lets try the opening post for example.....lol

When I have carried a firearm, I have never, ever FORGOTTEN I was carrying it. The only other people I can think of on GC who have spoken on their gun ownership are honeychile and DGTess, but I believe we've all have had training (I have had pistol and rifle marksmanship courses) and that is part of the training. You don't forget you have your weapon, and you assume all weapons are loaded and ready to fire at all times. That's basic firearm safety and this person you're mentioning works in a gun store and really should know better.

I mean if I am going to and from the field and carrying a weapon, I am not going to stop in at the bank or on campus, where guns are verboten and just forget I have it.

Yeah I don't know how you can forget you have a deadly weapon on your person, especially as a firearm has a good weight to it. If you do, you shouldn't be carrying, because that is incredibly irresponsible.

I understand your point, but I don't think anyone other than that person can determine what someone may or may not forget. One of the guys at a firearms store here was telling me about an instance with an FBI agent a few years ago who was used to carrying his gun on his person in a certain place. One morning he switched it to a different spot and when something went down, he was shot because he wasted too much time trying to find his gun. Most people would think that he should have just been able to feel the weight of it and reached for it, but that wasn't the case. Some people carry it so often that they are no longer that sensitive to the weight of it.

Generally they don't just care whether the person is entering the premises or not. That's why they take precautions for areas at least two miles around. From what I have read, this man was milling about with people who were protesting healthcare. Those people weren't a great distance away from the actual building.

I don't even concern myself with Oswald and Depository.