Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

[ThomasPaine]

I wonder what some of you people would of said if I had carried my AR to an event that Bush was speaking at, even if I stayed within the legal limits of the law...

oh yeah, did I mention I am a real life socialist.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I would say the same thing I have been saying all along, not a good idea. It intimidates people, makes them nervous and does not show the 2nd Amendment in a positive spotlight. Being a socialist has nothing to do with it.

 

[hogdogs]

Thomas, I woulda never seen you at a Oscamma gathering but had I gone to a Bush gathering and seen you I woulda looked over the rifle and if it were a plain jane full original style stock I woulda complimented your tastes... If it were tacked out I wouldn'ta said nuttin to you for fear I was in the company of a mall ninja.
Brent

 

[AZAK]

Poseidon-28

Quote: by AZAK

"Blinky dudes" with Rambo holsters in t-shirts carrying politically charged signs have the same rights as the lawyer in a three-piece suit, and as the POTUS.

your response:

No, we don't. I don't have SS protection, a lifetime pension, and medical, and a 'office' forever in Harlem, paid for by the tax payers, oh, that's me.

I respectfully beg to differ. We do have the same rights, the president is not supposed to be "above the law".

What he has, in your example, you could have if you held the office. These are not rights, these are "privileges"/perks that come with the office. And if you disagree with these "privileges"/perks than take that up with your local congressperson; however, these are in no way rights that differ from what "We the People" are all supposed to enjoy equally.

 

[TravisB]

It is impossible for the introduction of a weapon at a peaceful political event not to be seen as intimidating.

Moreover, it is impossible for people to believe that the person with the weapon is not trying to intimidate.

Adding an AR15 to your political speech is not innocuous. It's a statement.

Honestly, the American public is not going to believe that a given protester was clueless about the obvious meaning of his firearms display. They're going to assume he's clued-in enough to know, and he means it. Not only won't they buy the "harmless expression of 2nd Amendment rights" line, they also won't believe that he believes it.

And when he gilds the lily by specifically saying "We will forcefully resist" or calls for "the blood of tyrants"? Please. As I said to a friend, "The rest of America is not as stupid as you are pretending to be." It is absolutely impossible that the majority of American people will not see this as a major step toward political violence. To believe otherwise is denial.

When that one protester becomes an entire self-identified group, all with weapons, the press will call them an "armed mob." And they will be right.

Gun-rights orgs should be treating this trend as a crisis -- a threat to their mission. They should be sending a strong message that this use of firearms is unacceptable in a peaceful democracy. If this trend gets out of hand and leads to a reverse of recent progress on gun rights, gun-rights organizations and activists will be squarely to blame. At a time when they should be speaking out against this with urgency, they're mostly watching from the sidelines or cheering it on.

In retrospect, that is going to look very stupid.

 

[azredhawk44]

Travis:

Are you aware that SEIU members (pro-Obama camp) were going around to unarmed protesters and spitting on them and kicking them in the family jewels, and police did nothing about it? This was at the NH rally where the man was carrying a gun.

One SEIU member tucked tail between his legs and ran the second he caught sight of William K.?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUxjahek0f8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sCqC6cdxgU

I will be carrying openly when I go to events in the future, and I'm going to make it a point to deliberately attend as an armed protester.

I will do this because thugs are attempting to control dialogue.

 

[SIGSHR]

I note that this individual was a citizen and RKBA advocate of "color". So much for the idea that advocates of the RKBA are all Ku-Klux.

 

[HellBillySuperstar]

Here's something I bet you didn't expect. The guy with the AR-15 was African-American.

I didn't have a clue about that, and assumed otherwise. I wonder why I haven't seen anything about that on CNN or MSNBC!

 

[javabum]

Because in the real world, perception is everything, and while nobody on here is saying this man does not have the right to carry (and the fact he wasn't arrested proves it), his apperance doesn't improve the perception people have toards gun enthusiasts. Matthews shreaded him. This guy wasn't prepared for the questions he was asked, and he allowed Matthews to disrespect him.

the individual you mentioned in the above type about not being prepared....is this the same guy we have "all" been talking about.....and if so how do you figure he was shredded and ill prepared.
i beg to differ...this individual was well versed in history and spoke eloquently
when questions were posed to him.
look...weather or not we agree or dis agree about his actions the fact still remains.....he was lawfully exercising his 2nd amendment rights.you dont have to like what he did or even agree with it....its his right....plane and simple.
and until this right is taken fight to keep it.....don't lay down.stand behind this guy and more will eventually come out.....
remember change starts with 1 person and spreads.

 

[Zilmo]

I will be carrying openly when I go to events in the future, and I'm going to make it a point to deliberately attend as an armed protester.

I will do this because thugs are attempting to control dialogue.

Well, thanks for being part of the problem!

 

[Wildalaska]

I've laid out of this one becasue I have been thinking long and hard about the issue. Its a tough one.

For what my opinion is worth, I join in this statement from HKmp5SD

'It intimidates people, makes them nervous and does not show the 2nd Amendment in a positive spotlight"

I also join in the opinion that parading around with firearms at a political event is contrary to what our country stands for: peaceful democracy

WildimexhaustedAlaska ™

 

[Poseidon28]

atthews shreaded him. This guy wasn't prepared for the questions he was asked, and he allowed Matthews to disrespect him.

I beg to differ. Matthews came off as a sensationalist idiot to many of us. It was real clear he was baiting the gentleman, and, the way he handled himself was exceptional. Matthews clearly tried to both intimidate, with loud, and, make him look ignorant. He only made himself appear as such.
Constantly repeating the same phrase,
"You brought a gun to.."
Got old, real fast, and, made it clear that Matthews was not there for a conversation, but, for a platform for his pontificating.
Considering the difference in experience in front of a camera, the gentleman did VERY well. He actually had a bit of historical knowledge, and, it did not leave him at the time.

-2 Matthews
+2 H

By the way, I have the exact reverse view of having guns around. Since I am often in a free fire zone, where violence occurs with guns, less then a block away, or did last year, seeing an officer with a Kimber is a great comfort.

 

[TravisB]

The Black Panthers were perfectly within their legal rights when they followed cop cars around and held rifles while standing ten feet away from the cops when they made arrests. They didn't interfere, they didn't break the law -- they just followed the cops around, carrying rifles.

That as well as other open-carry-as-political-statement behavior led to "The Panther Bill." The end of open carry in California, signed by Republican Governor Ronald Reagan. True story. Really. You can look it up.

Here comes "The Tea Party Bill"...

 

[OuTcAsT]

So do guns at the rallies, with an implicit threat of violence, help - or do they hurt?

Glenn,

Surely you are not saying that the mere presence of a firearm somehow "implies" violence? I believe that the exact opposite was shown, that a firearm can be present and no violence occurred at either event.

Further, I believe it made that statement rather concisely.

Subtle point that passes folks by.

Really? and by what standard do you measure that ?
It has incited at least 8+ pages of discussion on this fora alone, numerous media accounts, and likely an immeasurable amount of "water cooler" chatter, and thus far, save the posts that "smell of fear" in this thread, seems to have encouraged others to join the cause. Those who are incensed were likely already predisposed anti-2A to some degree, or are merely fearful of some sort of "backlash". Either way, a statement was clearly made.

That as well as other open-carry-as-political-statement behavior led to "The Panther Bill." The end of open carry in California,

Sorry to spoil your "spoiler" but, it was the outright verbal and published threats, coupled with a clearly violent agenda that accomplished that, not merely someone open-carrying, you have extremely over-simplified the matter, and it has no bearing on these events.

I wonder what some of you people would of said if I had carried my AR to an event that Bush was speaking at, even if I stayed within the legal limits of the law...

You mean the same as these guys did? then I would say good on ya'

oh yeah, did I mention I am a real life socialist.

Then you are in good company, as it is becoming an increasingly large crowd.

 

[bradofhill]

To reiterate what others in this thread have mentioned ... if a significant number of attendees at this event went armed, it wouldn't be a big deal or contrary to anything, but they didn't. We're not there as a nation right now, and that's no invasion on 2A, it's just the point where our society is today. There was no attack on this guy's rights going on, and there likely won't be on yours either if that's what you're (whoever you are) concerned about. Go try it out for yourself and see. There was, however, a reaction because it's out of the norm, just like there would be if Obama farted into the microphone. Illegal? Nope ... unusual exercise of one's rights? I suppose so.

I'm sure that many folks got an education on what is and isn't legal with regards to firearms through this whole thing, and that can only be a good thing (yes, even if the anti's found out you can legally OC there *gasp*).

 

[OuTcAsT]

I also join in the opinion that parading around with firearms at a political event is contrary to what our country stands for: peaceful democracy

Ken, care to regale us with just how this "peaceful democracy" (technically incorrect, but I digress) came into existence? And once it did, why the architects drafted a constitutional right to provide for just such a demonstration as the one we are discussing?

It is, of course, a rhetorical question, but I cannot fathom from what abysmal place all this fear of a flourishing "Constitution-in-action" emanates.

 

[Al Norris]

... I cannot fathom from what abysmal place all this fear of a flourishing "Constitution-in-action" emanates.

Quite simple, really. Unfamiliarity.

It is human nature to fear that with which we are not familiar with. It is an ingrained survival trait. In my open carry post (referenced earlier), I thought I had made that point quite clear.

To say you are amazed by this fear, means to me, you haven't really thought through the implications. Holding to an ideal is all well and good, but you must still see the pragmatic view and plan for it. Reality will intrude, like it or not.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Even among friends who know, love and trust me implicitly, there is a sort of shocked blank stare when a person sees a real firearm for the first time. It is a kind of awe, mixed with fear, uncertainty and a little fascination.

No widespread renaissance of the second amendment can truly happen until we get better at understanding and managing that fear. For one thing, it's not totally unreasonable fear. Firearms are deadly weapons. Combined that fact with unfamiliarity, and a person would have to be brain dead if not a little apprehensive.

Nothing is more reassuring to folks than for them to see our competency with our handling of them, our absolute commitment to safety, and to let our humanity be seen. Anger in a gun owner is an anti-gunner's worst nightmare.

 

[Beentown71]

Kudos...

I would like to thank you all for a informative discussion. I am at a point of my life where I am forming ideals and this sort of thing is great. I have my basic beliefs but not the background for where they come from. I am lacking the prose to explain (tired because the time and exhausted form thinking about this topic) but thanks again.

Beentown

 

[OuTcAsT]

To say you are amazed by this fear, means to me, you haven't really thought through the implications. Holding to an ideal is all well and good, but you must still see the pragmatic view and plan for it.

I understand the hesitation to embrace this sort of activism, I honestly do but, at the same time I see the pendulum of our representative republic swinging in a direction I have not witnessed heretofore in my lifetime. Frankly I am emboldened by the prospect. Call it hubris-tic if you will, but I am encouraged.

In my open carry post (referenced earlier), I thought I had made that point quite clear.

You also made a point that collective activism is effective and that it only takes one or two people to start a movement, I know that it was not your intent to have that sentiment carry over into this set of circumstances, but, I believe it should. as Churchill said;

Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities... because it is the quality which guarantees all others.

IMHO Now is the time for courage.

Nothing is more reassuring to folks than for them to see our competency with our handling of them, our absolute commitment to safety, and to let our humanity be seen. Anger in a gun owner is an anti-gunner's worst nightmare.

Again Sir, an inspiring quote, very well said !