Because shootings are pretty common. And if they are not attached to some greater movement with greater meaning, then one is just as meaningful/meaningless as the next.

Shootings in close proximity to a sitting President aren't common.


Based on your comments and attitude about the situation, I think it is safe to say that you wouldn't give a flying flip if one of them shot at Obama. However, there are some of us who want him to continue to be President and to be safe. I don't care how common shootings are, they are still dangerous.

In addition, I want to say that it annoys me how they are trying to play this off as strictly a second amendment issue. It's a veiled threat.

Why do you feel that this is a threat? Please explain how it is more then just a constitutional issue, which is bad enough. Also what did anybody say that suggested that they wouldn't care if somebody shot at Obama, who is the sitting President of the United States. I hated Bush with a passion, but I never wanted him to be shot because of the position he held.

Wow. That's one hell of a leap there.

I think it's just fine that someone carries a gun in an area near the President which even the Secret Service doesn't have a problem with, ergo, I think it'd be hunky dory if someone shot the President. You got into law school?

Gun Toter @ meeting in New Hampshire

Ummm....he doesn't look too swift...

Nor does he....

Gun Toter @ meeting in Arizona

Playing Devil's advocate...but while Bush was in office, people didn't feel threatened about losing their rights to bear arms.

Yes, I got into law school. And your point? Don't sit there and act like your attitude doesn't give one the impression that you don't much care of something happens to Obama. Whether you agree with his politics or not, any citizen should be concerned about potential violence towards a sitting President because of the consequences.

And just because the Secret Service doesn't have a problem with it does not mean it is okay or should be allowed. There have been incidents over the years that show questionable decisions made by the secret service with respect to security for their protectees.

I mainly feel that way because they were carrying firearms outside of a forum where he was discussing something OTHER THAN the second amendment. There is a proper time and place for everything. Also, I feel that way because of the political affiliations that some of them apparently have. Then there is the fact that carrying these firearms near his speeches is apparently becoming a little more prevalent, and some of these people, in addition to wanting to bear arms, would like to see Obama killed.

Yeah, I understand that. I was speaking however in reference to security measures in general. Even if people were carrying a weapon legally, they weren't allowed to get that close to president's bush's speeches and forums. One of my law school classmates was standing outside on the street across from where bush was in attendance one days and he had his gun holstered on his belt. The secret service made him leave the area.

Why do you even bother responding? She just seems to like making extreme statements to get under people's skin.

I think you may have a point.

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.