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: