Protestors carry firearms near Presidential speech
 

PHOENIX – About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.

Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who monitored the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.

"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends."




Link

Nothing wrong with it IMHO. If folks want to carry their weapons and the law allows it, fine by me.

This the statement that gets me:

Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg. It's a political statement," he told The Boston Globe. "If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."

And remember this gem: "So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Decide to make a change on how some health care is done and people immediately pick up weapons because they are afraid of losing that right to bear arms...Nice.

I'm not sure who this "they" you are referring to is. It sounds like some caricature of a stereotype though.

Do you mean to say that if you don't support this coming "change," that you "cling" to things like guns, religion, xenophobia, or that you must necessarily cling to all three?

You have to realize that the only reason people like this are in the news at all is because someone is trying to paint anyone who disagrees with whatever Obama and the Democrats are selling as a loony and/or a domestic terrorist wannabe.

Don't buy too much into the hype. We right-wingers are generally pretty normal people who don't need guns, religion and xenophobia to comfort us in our belief systems. That said, I do tend to be quite fond of guns and religion and I'm not sure how I feel about free trade. Strangely, most pro-union Dems have misgivings about free trade, but I doubt they're religious or own guns or any of those scary things.

I won't buy it...until the shooting starts.

And google the 2nd quote.

Maybe I wasn't being clear enough in what I was saying. My fault.

What you are seeing is more likely than not a purposeful paying of attention to some protesters and not others in an effort to essentially slander/libel everyone who doesn't agree with whatever it is the President is pushing. That's all this is.

These crazy people have always been around. These sorts showing up at political events isn't exactly new. What is new is that they are getting some serious news coverage.

In other words, this is a non-event. Then again, I have a different perspective on guns than most of y'all who live in urban centers on the coasts. Around here, just about every other person carries a concealed weapon and it's perfectly legal. It is absolutely not uncommon to be out in public while in possession of a firearm. And the folks who carry firearms are just about never (if ever) implicated in doing anything wrong. I do have friends whose lives and property have been saved just because of the fact that they had their guns at the right times and places. I understand that most of y'all on the East Coast aren't even allowed to possess firearms in public. Maybe there's a cultural disconnect?

mmmkay...we will see.

Look over the last 2 decades.

During the Reagan years, you never heard about these guys. Bush I -- same story.

Then Clinton comes along and suddenly... they exist... almost out of nowhere.

Bush II comes along, they disappear. POOF.

Then Obama comes along? ...The SPLC reports that militias are on the rise again, in other news, someone was seen with a gun and a sign 5 miles away from where the President was speaking.

-- there is a pattern here, I promise.

I think it's pretty interesting how the health care debate has fired up the fear mongering on both sides of the aisle.

ETA: Also, I remember the 2nd quote from the President's campaign speech (in PA, right?). I think people from all political beliefs "cling" to certain issues when things get controversial for them.

Not diagreeing with you, amazed as you are that this makes news! But sense a little more is at work...tis all.


Ditto to what KSig said.

What's the correlation between changing health care and people all of a sudden fearing losing their rights to carry guns...especially when gun usage causes many to need health care in the first place....LOL

or, maybe the media is bored and trying to scare the bejeezis out of us.

This.

But, if someone does get shot, I am allowed to say 'I tole ya".

Right? :)

So long as I can disown the shooter.

Even if that happens, it'd still be just a shooting. Maybe one by a fringe lunatic for political reasons, but all in all, just a shooting.

Now, when we're talking human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria, I'd at least like an opportunity to disown a few people.

A concealed weapon, yes. But is it common to see someone walking around on a city street with a semi-automatic rifle over his shoulder? That's the part I think is noteworthy, and I can see why it raises some eyebrows when a president (any president) is nearby.

Maybe you never heard about guys like this during the Reagan and Bush (I and II) years. I can assure you I did. I think it's a bit of an oversell to blame a sudden interest in them on the liberal MSM. Maybe that's part of the equation, but not all.

To me that's the interesting phenomenon here -- the depth of the reaction and fear-mongering all around.

It's ironic that the protester who is apparently afraid his civil rights are being impermissibly curtailed is able to carry a semi-automatic rifle over his shoulder so close to the President.

LOL. It is indeed.

('Course, counselor, that was unresponsive to my question. ;))

Agreed - it's the part that I think is the most fascinating. I'll admit that I'm no expert on health care issues, although I have read through the President's various proposals. I have close friends and family who are very knowledgable on health care policy from previous jobs, so it's been interesting to talk to them about the different proposals and how they are different than what's come before.

However, to see both sides so badly mischaracterizing the other...it's just really interesting. Memo to all those out there: there are good arguments for and against the various health care proposals.

Here's my thing . . . why do we assume these guys are dumb, or purely looking for "shock value"? Is that because we assume gun advocates are morons for some reason?

Think about it - a guy in NH (whose state motto is "Live Free or Die") carries a sign about retaining freedoms, while legally holstering a gun. Why wouldn't we assume this is in direct opposition to Obama's semi-moronic claim that non-urban states "cling to their guns" and all that (a claim which Obama basically recanted on)? Doesn't it seem most likely this guy is making a point, and one that is actually fairly well stated?

Sure, the guy with the AR-15 slung over his shoulder is creating a visceral image - just like Nancy Reagan's fried-egg "Brain on Drugs" or PETA throwing red paint or any number of other campaigns in the past. Does it work? Not generally, but that doesn't make it implicitly dangerous.

It really is fear-mongering of the highest order, a media-fueled level of stupidity that I just can't fathom. Let me tell you - a guy who is planning on taking a shot at Obama probably won't have the gun slung over his shoulder on a street corner, right?

Hmmm....Holocaust museum bring back any memories???

...just saying....


^^^^That.


This isn't Afghanistan.

I understand the right to bear arms...but wasn't that taking it a bit too literally for a protest??

You are protesting about health care...what are you expecting to happen at a healthcare rally that you have to pack heat?

Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Dude . . . "just saying"? You really can't see the difference?

I even OUTLINED IT IN THE POST!

Calm down...I was just picking with you.

Nothing. That's not the point he was trying to make.

I wholeheartedly disagree. With both statements.

I am baffled as to how they were able to do it. I never heard of anything happening like that when Bush was in office. I never would have been able to fathom that someone would be able to have a gun that close to the President. Obama has some of the most stringent secret service security in the history of this country.

If people are concerned about it or disturbed by it, it has nothing to do with whether they like guns or are in a part of the country that isn't as welcoming to concealed or visible guns being carried. It probably has to do with the fact that they were doing this within a certain distance of a sitting President.

I'm not comfortable with it, but if they had permits, it was completely legal. And as your argument with Bush, he was a hard core GOP member who support the right to bear arms. I think people are getting kind of ridiculous though as there is a limit to what Obama can do with gun control without a constitution amendment which frankly I don't think has a snowball's chance.

It's not about whether it's legal to do it. I don't think anyone is questioning the general legality of carrying firearms. I am puzzled that the secret service allowed them in the vicinity like that. I also think Mystic Cat said it best. That kind of weapon is not something typically seen while walking down the street.

Maybe some people feel that way because of WHAT they were carrying and WHEN they were carrying it. I firmly believe that they were looking for shock value. I don't think that's really a farfetched assumption. Does this man typically carry that rifle around on a daily basis since he's so concerned about his right to bear arms? I doubt it.

And you know this how?
:rolleyes:


And "just a shooting?" Kind of sad that someone is so nonchalant about shootings.

Apparently, it was not close enough to where the president was to fall under the secret service's jurisdiction.

That would have to be pretty far away because they have a wide "bubble" of protection.


I must have missed it, but how far away were they? :)


ETA: I read the article again, but I still did not see where they mentioned the distance.

I'm just going to continue praying for Obama's safety. Based on that article, it doesn't sound like THEY were too concerned about his safety. Ridiculous. Seems very lax to me.

Based on this type of behavior, I know I assume THESE (not all) gun advocates are dumb or moronic because of the manner in which they attempt to make a statement. Carrying an assault rifle under these circumstances is what makes people even more interested in gun control. I feel like if you wish to make a statement, do it in a respectable manner. Less is more. I think the man who is simply carrying his Glock in a holster on his belt in a legal manner is going to be taken more seriously and with more respect than someone who is carrying a firearm that looks like it belongs in a military or law enforcement setting. It's absurd and just horrifically backwards. I don't know Obama personally, but something tells me he doesn't respond well to this type of foolishness. You have a better chance of making headway with someone like him when you have an intelligent dialogue with him, presenting your points in a clear and effective manner.

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.