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