Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Grimlok

Inactive
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/11/chris-matthews-to-town-ha_n_256952.html

I think this guy kept his cool against a belligerent Chris Matthews interview. After a little digging I came up with approx. 4 other articles from various news papers. One stated that someone wanted a court injunction to forcibly disarm this man for doing nothing but obeying the laws of his state.

I'm also glad the guy didn't come off as a wacko, spoke clearly and stayed pretty calm compared to the obviously angry Matthews. I'm surprised he even agreed to do the interview for MSNBC.
 
I agree. I think the guy was very well spoken and came off looking like the sane person in that interview with Matthews.

William Kostric makes very good points and did nothing wrong today. I agree and I am glad that he made the statement that guns do not automatically make someone violent and that he was just standing up for our fundamental rights that were given to us in the Constitution.

However, I have seen the type of security that is around the President and I'm not sure that I would be wiling to possibly risk my life like this man possibly did today. He did absolutely nothing wrong, but I still have no desire to put my life in the hands of a government agent that might mistake a good, law abiding citizen with a gun as a possible assassin.

Anyway, I'm glad that he came off as an intelligent, law abiding citizen and got his point across instead of looking like a psycho. If there was ever a competition for who has the biggest set of balls in New Hampshire, this guy is now a finalist!
 
Wow! Ballsey. A big +1 to that gentleman.

Open carry to an Obama event. I guarantee he had a sniper on him and two secret service guys nearby the whole time he was there, and his whole ride back home that day. A lot of attention to undergo, and he's on "a list" now.

His point is valid though... and it also made an unspoken point with the union thugs. No muscling the crowd anymore.
 
Notice how Matthews kept trying to paint him as a radical, even though Matthews himself could easily be called such? Also, he kept putting words in the guy's mouth... We've come a long way as far as what passes for objective journalism these days, eh?
 
We've come a long way as far as what passes for objective journalism these days, eh?
Click to expand...

Based on polls showing the public's perception of the media, I don't think it's really passing for objective journalism anymore.
 
I don't know about you guys but I could have done without this guy. The net is already digging up tons of stuff on him, true or not who's to say, but he added NOTHING positive to the conversation. Read the comments on any of the articles, especially the "liberal biased" ones, and across the board they're calling him a nutjob, a wacko, a birther, a freeper, etc etc.

Everyone's outraged, and the gun issue is out there on the front page again anchored entirely to negative connotations. I was glad to see that he seemed intelligent and non-confrontational or extremist in his interview, but I still could have done without him.

This was actually the best case scenario for him too. The camera guy who saw the gun could have screamed "he has a gun!" to incite panic and good tv, everyone would have scattered, secret service would have tackled him and arrested him and we'd have a front page story of a registered gun owner coming to a presidential event with unknown intentions. They'd dig up his net activity, maybe he posts here, and this site would be discussed negatively. They track down different members for interviews (I'm certainly easy enough to track down) and get someone, possibly like me, who still has limited knowledge (enough to have an opinion, but not enough to give a good interview)...

To be honest? If I had been in charge of crowd control and protection, I would have arrested him regardless of the legality of such an arrest. I'd "detain him". Say I smelled marijuanna or alcohol on his breath. Whatever it took to move him from the event. He must have been very far away from where the president was going to be and he certainly had a crosshair on him for the rest of the day.
 
God, I love New Hampshire !!!

Wish I could have gotten my wife to move there instead of staying in MA.


Anyway, I watched the interview Matthews can go get a tingle in his leg :p.


You can legally open carry in NH, he followed the rules (no brandishing), and spoke his mind (very well on the interview I might add).

No issue here, just the media attempting to get the public in a tizzy. I wonder what new rule they'll come with in MA now :mad:
 
That is excellent, Mattews came off as radical nut job, badgered the guest and was clearly a biased interview while trying to push the guns equal violence agenda.

The guy on the other hand, came off very well and was clearly very level headed.

As far as big balls, there is no doubt that gentleman has them. It was his right, I'm proud he used it, but you know the Secret Service was has on high alert.
 
Last edited:
Everyone's outraged, and the gun issue is out there on the front page again anchored entirely to negative connotations. I was glad to see that he seemed intelligent and non-confrontational or extremist in his interview, but I still could have done without him.
Click to expand...

The gun issue is always portrayed by the media entirely with negative connotations. This guy did nothing but good things for the gun movement.

Think about it....

Anyone who is an "anti" is already in agreement with the agenda and will not change, regardless.

Anyone who is already "pro" will see through the nonsense and will not change.

Anyone who is "undecided" may well see through the nonsense as well, and they MIGHT change, another "pro-gunner". If the nonsense was going to change them to "anti" then it already would have, it's not like it's new.
 
Anyone who is "undecided" may well see through the nonsense as well, and they MIGHT change, another "pro-gunner". If the nonsense was going to change them to "anti" then it already would have, it's not like it's new.
Click to expand...

That's the one potential positive from debating a hard core anti gunner with an impartial audience. If you can remain calm and use reason and facts to put forth your argument, you and your side will look much better than the other side that becomes unhinged when they argue.

At the very least you'll get the undecided to think "those anti gun people are nuts - I don't want to align with them at all".
 
Jofaba said:
To be honest? If I had been in charge of crowd control and protection, I would have arrested him regardless of the legality of such an arrest. I'd "detain him". Say I smelled marijuanna or alcohol on his breath. Whatever it took to move him from the event. He must have been very far away from where the president was going to be and he certainly had a crosshair on him for the rest of the day.
Click to expand...
If you're gonna illegally arrest him, hell, you might as well have some fun and rough him up a little. If you kill him, you'd probably even get a medal for it for being so brave and heroic. :barf:
 
Where would the civil rights movement be if people worried about the negative implications of refusing to ride in the back of the bus or refusing to allow picket lines to stand in the way of going to school?
 
He's not the most photogenic guy on the planet, but he did stay calm and appear "normal."

I love the huffington post comments. One guy open carries and they think he tried to assassinate Obama, accuse him of being mentally handicapped, a birther (when he clearly stated he was not), and even go so far as to say he is a sexual predator.:confused::mad: So much for liberal tolerance.
 
On another note, anywhere the President may be, will be declared a "sensitive area" (ala Heller), and guns will not be allowed, regardless of other State law to the contrary.

That is the one thing, this will result in.

Like it or not, in todays day and age, this type of exception to RKBA should have been obvious from the start to most anyone. I'm surprised it hasn't occured to the PTB.
 
As long as the Secret Service keeps the secure area a reasonable size, I'm fine with declaring the area where the POTUS is to be a sensitive place. Assassination is a real threat for state leaders, and security manpower is limited.
This one seems a reasonable exception (LOS/200-1000yds from where the President is speaking).
 
The guy came across as very calm considering the way Mathews badgered him. He didn't allow Mathews to bait him into making any radical statements and did nothing that would paint himself as a gun toting nut. I'm sure the anti gunners were disappointed with his cool response to Mathews loaded questions.
 
pnac: I think the earpiece was to facilitate the interview with the bag of hot air in whatever media center he broadcasts from, Probably not done live from NH.

I am a SEIU member who is outraged by the way my union dues are spent; especially when honest demonstrators are labeled 'protestors' or 'grass roots incitors' and attacked by 'union thugs' who are getting days off of work on my dime (somehow they use pooled 'education days' for political rallying). I need the job, and the union is part of the deal, but their political agenda makes me want to :barf:. If I was attending any political rallies in the near future, I would almost certainly be armed in some fashion to protect myself from the union strongarms that B'Obama has conscripted to ram World Socialism down our throats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top