Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting that race is brought up, as basically what the antis do to us is segregation. "Keep it at home" as to say "Keep away from us, we don't want that around." "What works in Wyoming doesn't work in New York/Chicago/California"...heard that one? They want "separate but equal."
 
While I believe that the protesters at the event are supporting a position I agree with, IMHO their methods are tasteless and overwrought, and their actions are bound to bring strong negative attention to our cause. The administration's quiet acquiescence brings to mind the old political adage: When your opponent is committing political suicide, do not get in his/her way. :rolleyes:

I would also support establishing a "No Loaded Firearms" zone around the President- say, a radius of a 1,500' or so. A sovereign nation has an obvious interest in protecting the safety of its chief executive, and such a zone would obviously be a "sensitive area" as defined in D.C. vs. Heller, and would therefore be constitutional.

That said, I strongly, strongly disagree with the overall sentiment of the Dionne editorial. The fact that the men were armed is not a "threat" per se. It may be over-the-top, but the First Amendment protects their right to make statements that another person may find outrageous or distasteful.
 
Perhaps we have a dividing line. People born after 68, and those born prior?

Perhaps the experiences in those time periods create just such emotional reaction to the presence of firearms around presidents?

E.J. Dionne Jr.'s article overlooks, as do many others, including the media, that the SEIU (Who are they?) is using violence to intimidate at these meetings, and, it's not getting any press coverage.

So, now that we have a dividing line, who should I vote for for congress?
A 56 year old that says he supports the 2A, even though he's a doctor, or a 32 year old, that while he doesn't say he's 2A has been through Iraq?
 
Last edited:
The journalist is EJ Dionne

And while I will avoid going into a rant here, and will try to avoid making a purely political statement, I will say that I group the Post's Dionne with Paul Krugman over at the LA Times. Read a few of their editorials, the subjects won't really matter, and I think you'll find that the editorial cited in this thread is typical of either or both of them.

I don't think I've ever read an editorial from either man that I agreed with. Considering I read David Broder, David Ignatius, and Charles Krauthammer on a regular basis, and enjoy their insights (these three are dissimilar from each other), that makes Dionne and Krugman really stand out in a bad way for me.
 
The fact is that people ARE alarmed at a person walking around with an AR over his shoulder (or any other gun visibily displayed, when it's ONLY purpose is to make a statement).
Click to expand...

Really? while that may be your opinion, it has certainly not been born out as fact.

Please go back, look at all the footage, pictures, and accounts, and show me where anyone even remotely, appeared to be alarmed at any of these events.

(Save, of course, the NYT blatherings)

The record shows that; not only were there no "Oh my gosh, he has a gun!!!" comments (other than Matthews) but even LE was well aware of all these protesters and even began to educate people about the protesters right to do so.

People like this are no friends of mine.
Click to expand...

So, are we to assume, from this, and some of your other comments, that you do not support any sort of freedom?
You do not seem to like people exercising their 1A rights;

The "Tree of liberty" sign is just icing on the cake.
Click to expand...

Nor their 2A rights;

along with the presence of the gun, worn with maximum Rambo fashion in the mall ninja thigh rig, clearly stated what he meant to say.
Click to expand...

And you even have a distaste for military veterans it seems;

And not EVERY gun owner is entirely mentally stable. There's a guy I see at my range all the time. He's a Vietnam vet.
Click to expand...

I am curious, you obviously are interested in firearms, but I am guessing you are not involved in, nor support any "activism" of any sort, and are happy with the status quo ?

Maybe you feel you are supporting the cause by keeping your NRA membership? I am just puzzled at why you protest so loudly, over the otherwise "silent" protests of others ?

Idiots ? Morons ? Really? Or are they simply the folks who put themselves on the "front lines" to promote the activism that is necessary to guarantee your own continuing freedom to "go to the range" or "pontificate" on the internet?

Sometimes it is necessary to champion a cause, in an unusual manner, to keep it on the forefront.

And sometimes people just stand on the sidelines, and yell at the action on the field.
 
Last edited:
Really? while that may be your opinion, it has certainly not been born out as fact.

Please go back, look at all the footage, pictures, and accounts, and show me where anyone even remotely, appeared to be alarmed at any of these events.

(Save, of course, the NYT blatherings)

The record shows that; not only were there no "Oh my gosh, he has a gun!!!" comments (other than Matthews) but even LE was well aware of all these protesters and even began to educate people about the protesters right to do so.

Quote:
People like this are no friends of mine.

So, are we to assume, from this, and some of your other comments, that you do not support any sort of freedom?
You do not seem to like people exercising their 1A rights;


Quote:
The "Tree of liberty" sign is just icing on the cake.

Nor their 2A rights;


Quote:
along with the presence of the gun, worn with maximum Rambo fashion in the mall ninja thigh rig, clearly stated what he meant to say.

And you even have a distaste for military veterans it seems;


Quote:
And not EVERY gun owner is entirely mentally stable. There's a guy I see at my range all the time. He's a Vietnam vet.

I am curious, you obviously are interested in firearms, but I am guessing you are not involved in, nor support any "activism" of any sort, and are happy with the status quo ?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be nervous either if there were 10 cops around him watching him like a hawk. You want to do an experiment? Sling your AR over your shoulder and walk around in public. Let me know the reaction you get.

I support his right to own that AR. I DO NOT support his insistence to carry it in an inapproarite setting, ESPECIALLY since his SOLE reason for doing that was to make a statement and get on TV. How much you want to bet he doesn't tote that thing with him when he strolls around Arizona? And my voicing MY distate for what these guys are doing is MY right.

No distate for military veteran at all. MAXIMUN distaste for those who want to look like one. Halloween is still two months away. Mall Ninja's are clowns. Why did he choose THAT rig? And the Vietnam vet I see is nuts. No disaste for his status as a vet, just the fact that he has about 4 marbles rolling around his head.

What "activism" am I involved in? I'm an NRA member. I have a job, a family, and a house to care for. My weekends aren't spent slinging my AR over my shoulder to get my face on TV. Guns are a PART of my life. They're not my life.

Intention is what it's all about. My BS meter is PINNED when I see these clowns. They aren't "saviors" or "warriors for our cause". They're goofballs who are a detriment to our cause. There are so many better ways to get our point across, yet we put blinkey eyed dudes wearing a Cheaper than Dirt cheesey thigh rig on the altar and praise them? PLEASE!
 
Last edited:
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Thursday, August 20, 2009

Try a thought experiment: What would conservatives have said if a group of loud, scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?

How would our friends on the right have reacted to someone at a Reagan or a Bush speech carrying a sign that read: "It is time to water the tree of liberty"? That would be a reference to Thomas Jefferson's declaration that the tree "must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Click to expand...

Mr. Dionne very nearly makes an interesting point. Signs directly threatening or wishing a violent death on the exec were common during those administrations. They were so common, they weren't news. We just became accustomed to them.

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
 
Intention is what it's all about. My BS meter is PINNED when I see these clowns. They aren't "saviors" or "warriors for our cause". They're goofballs who are a detriment to our cause.
Click to expand...

Yeah... that Heller guy too.

Orin Hatch and the NRA were right... we were gonna lose that case anyways. 2A is a 100% defensive fight. I'm gonna go buy another box of WWB down at Walmart now that I've done my due diligence and chest-pounded on an intarwebz thread.:rolleyes:

These types of people are the Rosa Parks of our movement, like it or not.
 
How would our friends on the right have reacted to someone at a Reagan or a Bush speech carrying a sign that read: "It is time to water the tree of liberty"?
Click to expand...

I have photos, lots and LOTS of photos of protesters with far more graphic stuff than that from the Bush era. Especially during the "Bring Them Home Now Tour" that Cindy Sheehan and Jessie Jackson cooked up.

Compared to some of the stuff I saw there all of the current stuff looks really mild to me.:rolleyes:
 
These types of people are the Rosa Parks of our movement, like it or not.
Click to expand...

And so are the Foeti folks waving coat hangers or splashing tomato soup, the PETA folks handing out Ronny MCDonald with a knife pics to kids, the Klansmen with nooses, the Moveons with Bushchimphitler and all the rest of the political clowns with a message that galvanizes loons and no one else....

Sorry AZ, there is a difference between civil disobedience in the face of unlawful or immoral conduct like Rosa Parks and safe little shock tactics for the look at me crowd.

If those folks want to be Rosa parks, go march on San Franciscos City Hall with the guns, rather than playing mememeimsuchafeeedomfighter in gun safe Arizona.

WildtheniwillagreewithyouAlaska ™
 
Homerboy

Intention is what it's all about. My BS meter is PINNED when I see these clowns. They aren't "saviors" or "warriors for our cause". They're goofballs who are a detriment to our cause. There are so many better ways to get our point across, yet we put blinkey eyed dudes wearing a Cheaper than Dirt cheesey thigh rig on the altar and praise them? PLEASE!
Click to expand...
Emphasis by AZAK

I, for one, would be interested in seeing your ideas of how to better get this point across.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the actions of these two men, it seems to me that both were legally exercising a right secured to them under the 2nd Amendment; and apparently also recognized by the federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel at the events.

Thinking about the 1st Amendment, I have often heard, "I may not agree with you, but will defend your right to say it to the death." (Paraphrasing Voltaire?)

Perhaps we need a little more of that attitude when regarding others exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
Thinking about the 1st Amendment, I have often heard, "I may not agree with you, but will defend your right to say it to the death."
Click to expand...

I know, with guns it seems to be exactly the opposite. "I do agree with you, but condemn you for actually exercising the right. Look at all these people you have upset."
 
And so are the Foeti folks waving coat hangers or splashing tomato soup, the PETA folks handing out Ronny MCDonald with a knife pics to kids, the Klansmen with nooses, the Moveons with Bushchimphitler and all the rest of the political clowns with a message that galvanizes loons and no one else....

Sorry AZ, there is a difference between civil disobedience in the face of unlawful or immoral conduct like Rosa Parks and safe little shock tactics for the look at me crowd.

If those folks want to be Rosa parks, go march on San Franciscos City Hall with the guns, rather than playing mememeimsuchafeeedomfighter in gun safe Arizona.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And so was Malcolm X and Khallid Muhammed, who both called upon the death of whites, and cops in particular.

These types of people are the Rosa Parks of our movement, like it or not.
Click to expand...

PLEASE! Rosa Parks took a stand KNOWING she would be arrested and possibly killed. These guys stand outside KNOWING they are safe from arrest or prosecution. Comapring these guys to Rosa PArks is like comparing a champion paintball player to a Medal of Honor winner!
 
Last edited:
I think the situation where a dozen people had rifles was a bad way to go about it,semi auto rifles are pretty offensive.The event where the man had a pistol on his leg was a better way to do it.Not in the hand and being a defensive weapon
 
I personally would only carry a gun in an appropriate area that I see socially correct.I would not open carry a handgun exept for anywhere I would carry a rifle,such as a firing range or the woods
 
I, for one, would be interested in seeing your ideas of how to better get this point across.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the actions of these two men, it seems to me that both were legally exercising a right secured to them under the 2nd Amendment; and apparently also recognized by the federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel at the events.

Thinking about the 1st Amendment, I have often heard, "I may not agree with you, but will defend your right to say it to the death." (Paraphrasing Voltaire?)

Perhaps we need a little more of that attitude when regarding others exercising their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...

Sure. The Million Gun March that I have been hearing about for years.

Peaceful demonstrations by gun owners outside courthouses where recidivist felons using guns in their crimes are released daily (or outside prisons where parole board hearing of the same are occuring).

Most importantly, appointing spokesmen (or women) who don't give the willies to the rest of John Q Public. How about a Ivy League grad, captain of industry, politician, etc?

Sure isn't some dude with an AR (don't you LOVE how the media continues to say ASSAULT RIFLE, even though it isn't? How about somebody with clout holding a press conference refuting THAT misnomer? My brother looked at my AR once and said "why do you have a MACHINE GUN?")

Sending Elmer Fudd to be our representaive sure doesn't cut it.
 
In most states, we never see a civilian walking around with a sidearm. As such, they are going to attract attention and intimidate those around them just by their presence.
Click to expand...
Then perhaps there should be much more open carrying by "civilians" until
It is something we are very used to.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top