Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, but I dont think that I should be able to walk up and shake the president's hand with a gun in my pocket.

Call me crazy if you wish, but most of the country is calling most of us a lot worse.

My bottom line is that I don't think it advanced the conversation any. I think it has only hurt us. I think that only bad is going to come of it.

I may be wrong. I hope that I am. I hope that I am naive and this somehow spurs some advancement in gun rights. But I think that betting on that is short of insane.
 
Should....Should....Should.....Should......


I Should be allowed to buy a FN P90 machingun.

Doesn't matter.


In todays society, in the real world we live in, you are not going to be allowed to be near POTUS while in possession of a firearm unless Obama suddenly takes up reenacting as a hobbie.
 
In my opinion, the only minds, and eyes he opened were those of the folks that are scared of guns
Click to expand...

Really? you don't think it got the attention of those of us who are pro 2A ? or some who are simply pro-rights?

and made them say, "You mean open carry is still legal? We better ban that quick or we'll have more nutcases showing up to confront elected officials with guns."
Click to expand...

If that is your position, then the fear alone has already stripped you of your rights.

No, but I dont think that I should be able to walk up and shake the president's hand with a gun in my pocket.
Click to expand...

If you are in a State where it's legal, why not? He is only a man, same as any other, if he comes to my town, and I had a chance to meet him, provided it were in a place that is legal to carry, then I would carry as usual.

Is the President a King, that we must prostrate ourselves before him? Do our natural rights not exist in his exalted presence?
Click to expand...

Constitutionally, yes, they do.

How close to the president would you feel comfortable having this representative of the 2nd amendment, with a crowd around him full of unknown intentions?
Click to expand...

Personally, I would have no problem with him being close enough to be certain the President could read the sign clearly.

...then how is it reasonable for the US government to expect its own citizens not to exercise and preserve their own Constitutional rights?
Click to expand...

It is not reasonable to expect any less.
 
Last edited:
Looks like no harm was done...and the media made it's usual stink against citizens with 2nd leanings...

The man was braver than I...
 
Antipitas

You ask:
How do guns, combined with the displayed message, apply to that particular meeting event?
Click to expand...

I sounds to me that you answered your own question earlier in the same post:
What was this town hall meeting about? Did it have anything whatsoever to do with any specific right, we possess? Or was the event about another power-grab by the Feds? <-- That could be the basis for a display of guns. I just happen to think it isn't time... yet.
Click to expand...
Emphasis by AZAK

Apparently someone else disagrees with your "sense of timing"; as is his right.

A law abiding citizen chose to exercise several of his rights, as secured to him by TBofR. Was he there for health care primarily?

It does not matter. His right to vocalize his opinions on health care, the budget, and parakeets are all protected by the 1st Amendment. His right to carry openly are protected by the 2nd Amendment; also in this case also by the state, and the private property owner.

You may disagree with his sign/message at this time and locale; your right under the 1st Amendment to vocalize this. You may disagree vocally about his choice of open carry at this locale at that time; also your right under the 1st Amendment.

However, The Bill of Rights has suffered a bit of erosion in recent times, and exercising these rights is one manner of attempting to preserve them.
 
There's a fellow here in AZ, very active with the libertarian causes, named Ed Vallejo.

Every email I get from him for some event or other ends with:

Ed Vallejo said:
Rights are like muscles; you must exercise them to keep them fit, or they will atrophy and die.
Click to expand...

I can't agree more.

You guys are so afraid of creating a ruckus over open carrying, who knows what would happen if you actually had to truly "bear" those arms.
 
You guys are so afraid of creating a ruckus over open carrying, who knows what would happen if you actually had to truly "bear" those arms.
Click to expand...

You know azredhawk44, I believe you have cut to the quick of the matter. What this guy did was a subtle reminder to everyone that we do have rights, and with those rights comes a responsibility to use them, and protect them. I agree that the time may not be just now to bring arms to bear, but I also see that we are accelerating toward that possibility now, more than any other time in my life.

I also believe that this is a great time for us to follow this guys lead, and continue to remind our "representatives" that we the people are still in the drivers seat at every opportunity.

I also believe that this should open our own eyes to the fact that "put up, or shut up" may not be a foregone conclusion yet, but we damn well better start mentally preparing for that eventuality.
 
azredhawk44 said:
You guys are so afraid of creating a ruckus over open carrying, who knows what would happen if you actually had to truly "bear" those arms.
Click to expand...
Really?

From another old post, Part 1: here and Part 2: here. It's part of this thread, in the General Handgun Forum.

I still carry openly, going about my normal day-to-day routines, but not for the reasons in the above linked article. Nowadays, it's for political reasons.

However, there is no dichotomy in my reasoning. I won't openly carry at a political rally that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns.
 
200 years ago, you could walk right up to the front door of the white house and knock on the president's door, and talk to him about whatever was important enough to drag you across the countryside. Carrying a pistol or rifle as you saw fit.

140 years ago you could meet any given politician on the street or even see a play in the company of the president of the united states, sidearm strapped on.

60 years ago a president or other politician might be campaigning across the countryside and stop in your place of business, farm or home for some glad-handing, and his secret service detail wouldn't precede him by several hours to confiscate your robber-stopper behind the counter, coyote gun in the tractor or nightstand pistol.

20 years ago you could attend a political rally for a presidential candidate without undergoing a million degrees of patriot act surveillance, magnetometer scanning and wanding, nitrocellulose puffer detection... and still be able to demonstrate for or against an issue without having to be in a "designated free speech zone.":barf:

I still contend we're getting weak. A pistol isn't a big bad bogeyman that's gonna leap out of its holster all on its own and make an Elmer Keith shot at 250 yards on that particular candidate.

The 2A is losing its fangs for politicians. As a result, so is the 1A.

When "our side" is shoved around by union thugs at town halls because they feel they can... we need to show them they can't. Takes some SERIOUS gumption for a union thug to start pushing that particular man with the pistol on his hip.

I know you've seen the youtube videos of SEIU and other union organizers shutting folks out of town halls, antipitas.

Do you think they'd do that if 2 dozen members of the "no obamacare" crowd were armed?

I realize that man said that he wasn't armed in response to Obamacare... he did imply that he was armed in response to tyranny though.

Tyranny is the arbitrary or unrestrained use of power or the despotic abuse of authority.

Wouldn't strong-arming your political opposition be the "arbritrary use of power" or "despotic abuse of authority?"

It may be petty tyranny... but it's still tyranny.

And carrying a gun isn't a threat in itself... but it is a whisper of a potential response.

And there's nothing wrong with that in my book.
 
However, there is no dichotomy in my reasoning.
Click to expand...

Al, I think there might be, you just don't realize it.

I read your tome about the decline of your neighborhood, and how first you, and your wife, decided to stand your ground so as not to become victims of the encroaching thugs.

I also read about how your neighbors saw what you were doing and, realized that they too had to take a stand if they wanted to continue to live in peace. I also read how you have, on more than one occasion, stood as a unified "show of force" against those who would violate your rights.

Why then, would sending the same message to political "thugs" be so un-settling to you? Also, could be that others will see your example, and follow suit. Keeping the riff-raff on their toes.
 
Originally posted by Antipitas
I won't openly carry at a political rally that has nothing whatsoever to do with guns.
Click to expand...

If you carry openly a substantial part of the time, what is it about political venues that would prompt you to forego your normal practice?

We have not seen sensational media coverage about town hall meetings at which the citizen-participants wore a necklace with a cross or a Star of David pendant, or a head scarf, or a turban. It is unremarkable to exercise freedom of speech and freedom of religion at the same time. But openly exercising our Second Amendment rights is apparently a different matter in the opinion of many, including members of TFL, and is highly subject to the approval or disapproval of others. We have hidden the exercise of our Second Amendment rights to the extent that their open exercise is not only noticeable, but sensational.
 
But openly exercising our Second Amendment rights is apparently a different matter in the opinion of many, including members of TFL, and is highly subject to the approval or disapproval of others. We have hidden the exercise of our Second Amendment rights to the extent that their open exercise is not only noticeable, but sensational.
Click to expand...

The only reason that the 2nd Amendment has come to this juncture is that "We the People" have allowed it to be so. A right is a right. There is fundamentally no difference between the "religion" aspect as the RKBA aspect in TBofR.

If "We the People" chose to not exercise one or more of these rights "en masse" and work to protect it, then we do face the very real possibility of it becoming a moot point and the "right" realistically becoming non-existent.
 
If "We the People" chose to not exercise one or more of these rights "en masse" and work to protect it, then we do face the very real possibility of it becoming a moot point and the "right" realistically becoming non-existent.
Click to expand...

Exactly AZAK, "some" would argue that bringing a right to the forefront makes that right a target for legislation against it, I feel it serves the cause to keep it "in your face" and hard to ignore, or legislate into oblivion.

The key to all this is; The 2A right exists to protect the rest from fading into obscurity.

Now it is not the time to hide one's lamp under the proverbial bushel, but to show it to all.

To proceed otherwise would be..."Irresponsible".
 
Last edited:
The problem is to what degree our government has the capacity and inclination to act independently of and in spite of our, as in we the people of the We The People that it's all supposed to be about, expressed claim of rights and will. It is abundantly clear that we have many, including at the top, elected officials who clearly could care less. The question is just how persuasive they are to the rest and just how far we push them to instruct the others to "punish" us for challenging them. It really does all boil down to whose voice is louder in our government, you and me or Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer.

I guess what we are doing is, in theory of those concerned about this, making an ever stronger and louder demand for those "in the middle" to pick a side. Those of us who are optimistic say this makes them pick our side, those pessimistic (and not without considerable cause) say it makes our enemies more forcible in demanding their colleagues and the public at large to pick theirs. Is it stirring up a fight we can't win at this point in time with the cards stacked the way they are? I don't know. The Sotomayor vote bothers me considerably on this matter.
 
Very Interesting thread. At first, I was very much in the Antipitas camp that it was a stupid thing to do. On the other hand I was thinking (dangerous :eek:) that maybe the more the public sees guns and then nothing bad happens maybe that is a good thing.

I am not a real fan of open carry, mainly because I do not want anyone to know I carry but that is a personal preference. However, I also know that the USSS will not let anyone near the POTUS with a gun, legal or otherwise. That fact will not change.

I know of an incident where a previous POTUS was working a "rope line" shaking hands and a guy was there with a legal CCW. An agent detected it, (watch them sometimes how they "handle" those folk near POTUS, they are really patting them down) and grabbed the guy (later that agent got a commendation) and they took him off and questioned him for awhile and let him go.

Why do I think this might be a good thing? I think the public needs to get used to seeing folk with guns and not freak out. Maybe something like this will help the perception. However, if a shooting incident occurs at one of these town halls then that could really go against us.

Just a note for those that may say something like "I don't care what anyone else thinks I have the right!" The fact is that the RKBA may be restricted and it is politicians who will decide whether to restrict them and how much. If the rest of America (most of whom don't own guns) turn on us then we will have lots of restrictions against guns and so we need to win as many over to our side as we can. Politicians are afraid of losing their jobs and I like it when gun control scares them. I want to keep as many as possible on our side or at worst neutral to gun control. My $.02
 
can you imagine that guy when bush was in office? he probably would have been in gitmo before bush finished his speech. of course he probably would'nt have gotten any further than those caged "free speach zones" they set up for people blocks away from the actual site.
 
I know of an incident where a previous POTUS was working a "rope line" shaking hands and a guy was there with a legal CCW. An agent detected it, (watch them sometimes how they "handle" those folk near POTUS, they are really patting them down) and grabbed the guy (later that agent got a commendation) and they took him off and questioned him for awhile and let him go.
Click to expand...

I have always wondered what legal authority they do that under.
 
Probably the same legal authority...

... the DEA uses to ignore CA laws legalizing medicinal marijuana.

Too bad States' Rights got co-opted by a racist agenda in the 50's - 80's; we need a States' Rights movement, but that name has a really bad historical connotation.

But Federal expansion has been going on since Reagan left office; some of the worst of it under a Republican administration...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top