# Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest



## Nuke_TRT (Feb 10, 2008)

*Aug 17 05:44 PM US/Eastern*
_By AMANDA LEE MYERS and TERRY TANG_
_Associated Press Writers_

PHOENIX (AP) - 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 incidents 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.

Full Story:
Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Sweet.

Why not exercise your 2nd AMD right? Hey, liberals already think these people are "gun nuts".


----------



## Nuke_TRT (Feb 10, 2008)

Notice the wording of the article about the "Assualt Weapon" for the AR-15.


----------



## rg1283 (Sep 14, 2005)

I am as pro 2nd amendment as anyone else. 

That being said brandishing a rifle in public and your 

A. Not at the range
B. Not a LEO
C. Not life or death
D. Not Hunting

You are an idiot! You should not be able to carry a firearm. Especially near the so called President of the US.

Common Sense goes a long way.


----------



## Hawk19 (Jan 9, 2009)

Just because you CAN doesn't always mean you SHOULD. Time and a place...


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2009)

What is the point of believing in the 2nd amd if you don't exercise it. I don't know the specifics of the people doing it in this article, but I CERTAINLY don't oppose the idea as a general rule. It's a Constitutional Right. Why is it so offensive to exercise it in a public place in a visible reminder to people what protects our FIRST amendment.


----------



## MetrowestPD (Oct 21, 2008)

These people (open carry) are making a statement about individual rights granted by the constitution v. big government control. What better way to get your point across to tens of millions of people without paying a dime. Don't lose the message due to the way it was communicated.


----------



## lawdog671 (Sep 20, 2005)

Wow though...I'd bet they all had several crosshairs on them the whole time though huh??...


----------



## Boston Irish Lass (Feb 13, 2009)

rg1283 said:


> Especially near the so called President of the US.


I have to agree with this. I'm all for people's rights, but having a president present, especially one so many would actually like to shoot, seems to be one of those times it shouldn't be allowed. How could they possibly keep him safe?


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2009)

That is the point BIL. If it isn't banned by some obscure federal code, they were licensed according to state law, and they weren't in violation of any state laws. ROCK ON. It sounds like it was a major violation of someone's sensibilities... that's about it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2009)

rg1283 said:


> I am as pro 2nd amendment as anyone else.
> 
> That being said brandishing a rifle in public and your
> 
> ...


So, should I only pray inside a church?

Only speak my mind on controversial issues inside my home?

Only discuss politics at one of these sham town hall meetings?

The _Heller _decision affirmed that the 2nd Amendment is as valid as the rest of the Bill of Rights.....I'm glad to see some people exercising their rights. Like anything else....if you don't use it, you'll lose it.


----------



## MetrowestPD (Oct 21, 2008)

Wolfman said:


> Well then, apparently you're *not* as pro-2nd as anyone else and your definition of common sense is somewhat skewed. Oh no!!! A big scary gun!!!
> 
> Since when is a slung rifle "brandishing"? Since when is a semi-auto AR-14 an "assault weapon" (retarded AWB language aside)? Step away from the Kool-Aid jug my friend. The Second Amendment has *NOTHING* to do with going to the range, hunting, police or "life or death". It had EVERYTHING to do with the liberty and autonomy of the individual and keeping the power of the government in check. "_You should not be able to carry a firearm._" You have to be absolutely shitting me. These people were engaging in fully legitimate and constitutionally protected activity. People are allowed to speak freely at these events, and there have been more problems, fights and riots due to people shooting off their mouths. So why not tell people they should not be able to speak? Religious tensions and intolerance kill millions worldwide every year. Maybe we should not allow anyone to practice a religion, that way these problems won't happen. Juries get confused and criminals go free. Let's abolish jury trials. You know, people in Camaros speed. Let's just make it illegal for anyone to own a Camaro. The only reason anyone would want a car that has more than 80HP is if they're going to break the law. The government should mandate what kind of car you should drive, what kind of house you should live in, how much you should get paid for the job you do, and when you get old and can't benefit society any more, it's only right that you should just die and make room for someone else.
> 
> ...





Delta784 said:


> So, should I only pray inside a church?
> 
> Only speak my mind on controversial issues inside my home?
> 
> ...


*Insert Applause Here*


----------



## Hawk19 (Jan 9, 2009)

lawdog671 said:


> Wow though...I'd bet they all had several crosshairs on them the whole time though huh??...


Yes.


----------



## jedediah1 (Jun 18, 2009)

"Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is."

sorry secret service, sorry LEO's working presidential details, sorry military...Paul Helmke hates you all.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

MetrowestPD said:


> *Insert Applause Here*


Absolutely.


----------



## Boston Irish Lass (Feb 13, 2009)

There will be no tears in my cups should the current president find himself a bit heavier to carry at the end of the day. I agree that people should have the right to bear arms. But what about all the secret service people that have to protect him? 

It's a valid point being made that once you start chipping away the rights it can snowball. I don't dispute that. My question isn't based on these particular fellas making their point. It's more of a general statement. What if hundreds of them were there? How could the secret service possibly keep the president safe? Is that really a possibility?


----------



## LongKnife56 (Sep 9, 2008)

Here's an interesting interview of William Kostric (the guy with a gun at Obama's staged Portsmouth love fest) by a lefty lib:

William Kostric: Talking to the Man Who Brought a Gun to an Obama Event -- Update: Two Men with Assault Weapons Seen at Obama Event Today | Nonsense News



> Nonsense News
> Talking to the Man Who Brought a Gun to an Obama Event - Update: Two Men with Assault Weapons Seen at an Obama Rally Today
> Oliver Miller
> August 17, 2009 Oliver Miller
> ...


----------



## Boston Irish Lass (Feb 13, 2009)

Wolfman said:


> If there are hundreds of armed citizens forming at one of the president's appearances, my guess is that the appearance would be canceled. Then maybe the president ought to take some time to consider stepping down and finding a new line of work, since the job he's doing here is obviously an abject failure


To me, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I think they fed right into the anti-gun culture's hands. Instead of positive reinforcement (pardon the pun) for the right to bear arms, it made the basic person - like myself - consider the potential repercussions of having so many people armed around the president instead of having the focus on their rights.

What's interesting is that I shop in NH frequently but I can't honestly say that I can recall ever seeing anyone with a gun outside of LE. I think it would make more of a statement if people started actually carrying them and put it right out there. It's why I originally asked if there were limits as to where a person could carry.


----------



## uspresident1 (Jan 12, 2007)

Wolfman said:


> *If there are hundreds of armed citizens forming at one of the president's appearances, my guess is that the appearance would be canceled. Then maybe the president ought to take some time to consider stepping down and finding a new line of work, since the job he's doing here is obviously an abject failure. Unfortunately given Obama's narcissism, the last person he will ever blame is himself. *
> .


That was freakin gr8 Wolf.


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

Boston Irish Lass said:


> What's interesting is that I shop in NH frequently but I can't honestly say that I can recall ever seeing anyone with a gun outside of LE.


Salem, Nashua and Portsmouth don't count BIL.
Shop north of Hillsborough, Stafford & Rockingham counties and your assessment of New Hampshire might take a different slant.
Not to say that it's a routine occurrence, but trust me, if you spend enough time in rural NH you will see open carry and not just in November.


----------



## Boston Irish Lass (Feb 13, 2009)

November = Hunting Season. HAH - I finally know something factual about guns LOL


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

Total douche bag. 2nd amendment or not, there is a time and place for everything and that was not it. These liberal rats are itching to take our guns anyway, and for them something like that is just another point of argument. This administration would gladly disarm the police if they could, never mind the private citizenry.


----------



## Eagle13 (Jun 12, 2008)

263FPD said:


> This administration would gladly disarm the police if they could, never mind the private citizenry.


This is the new look the administration is promoting:


----------



## USMCTrooper (Oct 23, 2003)

Although this comment had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, it has everything to do with what the pols of today believe:

*Congressman Massa: I Will Vote Against the Interests of My Constituents*

*New York has a problem with its elected representatives*. Many of them are so far to the left politically that they view their constituents as right wing nut jobs. So they avoid Town Hall meetings and shun any opportunity to meet with voters unless it is a carefully cherry picked group of like minded "progressives".

Congressman Massa: I Will Vote Against the Interests of My Constituents Gathering of Eagles: NY


----------



## MetrowestPD (Oct 21, 2008)

USMCTrooper said:


> Although this comment had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, it has everything to do with what the pols of today believe:
> 
> *Congressman Massa: I Will Vote Against the Interests of My Constituents*
> 
> ...


So much for Abe's speech.

_"....God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government: of the people, by the people*, for the people*, shall not perish from the earth."_ Abrahm Lincoln: Gettysburg Address



263FPD said:


> Total douche bag. 2nd amendment or not, there is a time and place for everything and that was not it. These liberal rats are itching to take our guns anyway, and for them something like that is just another point of argument. This administration would gladly disarm the police if they could, never mind the private citizenry.


263FPD have to absolutely disagree. The lefty libs already use any and every homicide by firearms as fodder for their campaign against the 2nd amendment. Everytime there is a mass killing the gun control arguments surface back up. This actually helps the cause because it shows an individual exercising his rights and no violence.

The idea here is I can open carry (exercise my rights in the vicinity of the President) and government cannot silence me, this is exactly what is provided for in the Constitution.

Your argument about time and place is a slippery slope. Should we not speak out against the government and give up our first amendment rights to free speech in the vicinity of the president or better time and place.

Again it is my opinion that the message is not entirely about the 2nd amendment as it is about individuals rights vs. big government's control limiting your rights.


----------



## Boston Irish Lass (Feb 13, 2009)

MetrowestPD said:


> Your argument about time and place is a slippery slope. Should we not speak out against the government and give up our first amendment rights to free speech in the vicinity of the president or better time and place.


I thought we already had? Aren't people already pulled by the FBI and such for speaking out about our current Epic Fail president?


----------



## Harley387 (May 1, 2002)

I am 100% Pro 1st amendment, but some liberals should NOT be allowed to excercise this right by holding up signs which clearly violate MY beliefs.
--sarcasm intentional


----------



## Eagle13 (Jun 12, 2008)

Pro:


> 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.


Con:


> Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who was monitoring the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.
> 
> He (Paul Helmke) said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening," he said.


And it also distracts from the protection of all the other citizens in attendance.

The 2nd Amendment:


> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


I want to hear some thoughts. Put yourself in the shoes of the LEO that has to respond to a report of a man with an AR-15 walking the streets. How would you respond and what would you think?

The addition of the president makes it a little more hairy because you don't know this guys intentions. He does have every right to be there, but at the same time, like 263FPD was getting at, should you just because you can? I would say most of us on this forum support the 2nd Amendment, including myself. But it becomes really touchy with situations like this because you can argue every aspect of the situation for or against either side of the debate. I feel like in this case, this guy caused more danger versus the effectiveness of his message.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2009)

Eagle13 said:


> I want to hear some thoughts. Put yourself in the shoes of the LEO that has to respond to a report of a man with an AR-15 walking the streets. How would you respond and what would you think?


If he was complying with the law, I'd leave him alone.

There's a novel concept, eh?


----------



## LongKnife56 (Sep 9, 2008)

So far so good as to bringing guns to town halls. I was concerned about an altercation as some of the goons regularly bused in to these by the libs believe in intimidation and bring baseball bats and other threatening items. 

I believe people have a right to defend themselves not just in their home but in their peaceable constitutional public pursuits such as exercising their first amendment rights. I also think they have the right to peacefully assemble free of intimidation by goons and thugs bused in from other states. I'm sure they got off the bus thinking we can push these NH pansies around.

I wish and hope more people begin to freely and openly exercise their second amendment rights - it would make for a safer and more courteous society. 

Since the first Portsmouth carry was the first of its kind to my knowledge I was concerned about the person who did it. Turns out he was extremely rational, calm and knowledgeable and kept his cool even when threatened. 

If he had been a whacko and someone had been shot, this would have been an excuse for the Libs to try to impose more restrictions on the right to bear arms. 

Too bad Pennsylvania is a state which tries to limit this right as open carry was sorely needed at the polling places where the Black Panthers showed up with nightsticks. 

But I am sure the Libs are dreaming up a way to make this a PR disaster for people opposed to socialized medicine. Nixon planted hippes at his public speeches to disrupt them and Obama's mentor Saul Alinsky told his student to dress up as KKK'ers and attend Bush rallies and cheer and clap for him so at some point we need to be prepared that the unions will try something.

We need to be prepared as sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword. Anyone who carries needs to have several people with video cameras rolling to record the event.


----------



## Eagle13 (Jun 12, 2008)

Delta784 said:


> If he was complying with the law, I'd leave him alone.
> 
> There's a novel concept, eh?


Right and that is exactly what Detective J. Oliver did in Arizona with this guy.

There is a lot of passion in this thread and I love it!


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

All of you that are saying I support the 2nd amendment BUT.

Are not supporters.

You may agree with it but if you do not fully support the man 
that was exercising his right to carry you are not a supporter.


----------



## MetrowestPD (Oct 21, 2008)

Eagle13 said:


> Pro:
> Con:
> And it also distracts from the protection of all the other citizens in attendance.
> 
> ...


First the SS has to watch everyone for every little movement (a most difficult job and one that I have the utmost respect for), a person openly carrying his AR 15 is someone who is showing you his weapon (most likely not their to do harm knowing he is being watched). If he intended to use it you can bet it would be hidden until that final moment.

"I feel like in this case, this guy caused more danger versus the effectiveness of his message."

Eagle, what danger did he cause? With all due respect if he was walking down the street any other day why would that be less/more danger? Also, the effectiveness of the message is obvious, how many news agencies reported on it 100%.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

USMCTrooper said:


> Although this comment had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, it has everything to do with what the pols of today believe:
> 
> *Congressman Massa: I Will Vote Against the Interests of My Constituents*


Ah, the long standing philosophical debate about the proper actions of elected representives: to always do the popular will of your constituents, vs. to do what you think is the right thing for the nation overall regardless of the popular opinion.

I grant you that most politicians who do the later in today's government are not nearly as sincere about it as they once were and use it as a guise to further their own adgenda, but remember, there is a reasonable and intelligent agrument for the premise. After all, if we wanted our elected officials to only do the majority's will everytime, we wouldn't have to vet them about their convictions during the campaign season--they could just poll constituents for every single issue and vote in that direction, whether they though it was right or wrong.


----------



## Boston Irish Lass (Feb 13, 2009)

kwflatbed said:


> All of you that are saying I support the 2nd amendment BUT.
> 
> Are not supporters.
> 
> ...


I just don't think that a place where a president is was the place to do it. You are correct, if you support the right to bear arms then you support the right to have it anywhere you please. I know I contradict myself in saying I support the 2nd Amendment, but don't think people should be able to waltz around with guns near the president. Like him or hate him....he still represents the country.

I think that this one man made a statement but I also think it was lost on a lot of people. Some of us don't need it rammed down to make the point, and if you HAVE to ram it down - then those people weren't ever going to be on your side to begin with.

That's what I mean by the point of it being lost. He made a point to two groups of people - the ones who were already on his side and the ones who will definitely never be.

This man in particular was articulate and well versed in his rights. How long before it's some lunatic? Not all of them have stamps on their foreheads. If he's in a crowd of thousands with their arms too, God help the president.

Yes these lunatics are already out there, but to me, this simply advertised how very simple indeed it is to shoot the president. Not what we needed at a time when terrorists are trying desperately to dismantle the USA.

I hate this thread for making me speak that way about him LOL.


----------



## Eagle13 (Jun 12, 2008)

You can't say that you are either for or against, black or white.

Was the protest about the 2nd amendment and gun rights or was it against healthcare or was it in response to the arrest of the guy in NH?


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

was thinking about this today and wondered, is this guy a plant ?

he was black and not that it means anything , but osama did get almost 100% support from the black community.

it's not too far fetched to think osama would plant this guy to take attention off his socialist agenda and use some guy carrying a rifle to avert attention from a controversial issue.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2009)

Boston Irish Lass said:


> I just don't think that a place where a president is was the place to do it. You are correct, if you support the right to bear arms then you support the right to have it anywhere you please. I know I contradict myself in saying I support the 2nd Amendment, but don't think people should be able to waltz around with guns near the president. Like him or hate him....he still represents the country.


The President is just a person, in spite of some people wanting to deify the current one.......his presence somewhere does not abrogate the United States Constitution.


----------



## LongKnife56 (Sep 9, 2008)

BIL - if you grew up in Ireland it is normal that you have a different view of guns as the Irish have no such right. So it would seem strange to you as truly only criminals have guns there..

Actually it seems strange to us now as this right had gone into disuse at least here in most of the northeast. As William Kostric said in the interview I posted above: "You and others can hire cops to do that job for you. I choose not to burden society with the responsibility of my upkeep and protection." We have cops so that for the most part these days we do not need to carry.

I grew up in Maine and it was very normal to see a rifle hung the back window of a pickup, although I do not remember seeing many hand guns and do not remember/know what the law was then about open versus concealed carry.

Hopefully this right has been resurrected. It certainly seems that way. As someone said let's hope there are 50 carrying at the next town hall.

As Thomas Jefferson said in his now famous Tree of liberty speech:



> And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them.


Besides there are people with guns next to the president all the time - both the secret service and the local police are all armed so it's not like armed people are not around the president


----------



## KozmoKramer (Apr 25, 2004)

Delta784 said:


> The President is just a person, in spite of some people wanting to deify the current one.





LongKnife56 said:


> Actually it seems strange to us now as this right had gone into disuse at least here in most of the northeast.





Wolfman said:


> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know we were limited to only speaking our mind or expressing our beliefs on only one topic at a time.


Well said boys, along with Metro, Harry and Obes.

As a side note fellow patriots.
Don't ever let the left impugn our Second Amendment rights & history based on the grotesque perversion of events caused by John Hinckley, Sirhan Sirhan , Lee Harvey Oswald, Lynette Fromme, John Wilkes Booth, Leon Czolgosz or Charles Guiteau.
They are abominations in the face of history and are in no way representative of true patriots who treasure and revere the Second Amendment.

I know that is where Chris Matthews was going with Bill Kostric, I wish he brought that point up, but he was on the hot seat in a hostile environment.

Stay strong. Molon Labe.


----------



## Hawk19 (Jan 9, 2009)

Wolfman said:


> Read my posts in this (and other) threads and you'll see why people who until now have remained quiet are now feeling it necessary to get out and make a stand. Things are getting so out of whack under this administration that a tipping point is being reached and the once reserved "silent majority" aren't keeping quiet anymore (with apologies to John Fogarty).
> 
> And yes, you are either for or against. Half a right is not a right. Once you apply capricious restrictions, your right becomes a privilege and exists only at the whim of others.
> 
> ...


Yes, it does. But it's not an unfettered, absolute right, just like how I have the right to free speech, but not to yell "fire!" in a crowded movie theater if there isn't one...


----------



## tsunami (Aug 12, 2009)

aaaand, I thought the debate was about Health Care Reform,....whats with guns??


----------



## 263FPD (Oct 29, 2004)

MetrowestPD said:


> So much for Abe's speech.
> 
> _"....God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and that government: of the people, by the people*, for the people*, shall not perish from the earth."_ Abrahm Lincoln: Gettysburg Address
> 
> ...


I respect your opinion MW as well as pretty much every opinon in every post by you that have had a chance to read. While most of the time you and I do agree, on this one I will have to agree to disagree. Never the less, your points a more then valid.


----------



## Eagle13 (Jun 12, 2008)

Wolfman said:


> Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know we were limited to only speaking our mind or expressing our beliefs on only one topic at a time. :roll: I'm afraid I must have missed that directive from Chairman Obama and Minister Pelosi.


It was a legitimate question I was truly asking what the protest was on. One or all or a combination of topics. That's all. It's cool. I wasn't implying that we are restricted in any way. Oh boy.



Wolfman said:


> Read my posts in this (and other) threads and you'll see why people who until now have remained quiet are now feeling it necessary to get out and make a stand. Things are getting so out of whack under this administration that a tipping point is being reached and the once reserved "silent majority" aren't keeping quiet anymore (with apologies to John Fogarty).


I agree with you on this Wolfman. It is great to see the patriotism and true passion people are showing for their rights and the truths that this country was founded on. It is great to see people fighting to preserve the rights which we are allowed by the Constitution of this great country!


----------



## LongKnife56 (Sep 9, 2008)

Everyone brings their mouth to a theater (and unfortunately not all of them keep them closed during the performance, but that's another story), but in modern times not everyone brings a gun to a show. While one certainly has a right to bring a gun to a theater, it is now unusual and outside the socially accepted norms and therefore shocking to some. (Maybe people ought to start watching more cowboy movies.)

Bill Kostric did us all a big favor. As 263FPD said: "This actually helps the cause because it shows an individual exercising his rights and no violence." Since it was unusual to bring a gun to an open political event at first I was worried about the impression he would make and whether he could handle situations that were bound to arise. Apparently he was able to diffuse the one that did. He also did it in (from the few videos I have seen) in an unintimidating manner.

I think the ordinary citizens who went to Bwarney's town hall meeting last night would have been intimidated if 3 bus loads of union thugs had showed up all armed with Glocks and AR15's. But attendees and gvoters have been intimidated in the past when goons or Black Panthers showed up with baseball bats or nightsticks.

The taxpaying lawful citizen has been silent and intimidated too long. As Thomas Jefferson said: "And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."

As Wolfman said:



> you'll see why people who until now have remained quiet are now feeling it necessary to get out and make a stand. Things are getting so out of whack under this administration that a tipping point is being reached and the once reserved "silent majority" aren't keeping quiet anymore


The intimidaters need to back off or the tipping point will be reached. I hope they don't back off. And it appears that they are not. Some Congressman have openly said they are going to not only avoid their constituents but also vote agaisnt their best interests.

Here's hoping that 2010 and 2012 will be a watershed.


----------



## Boston Irish Lass (Feb 13, 2009)

Delta784 said:


> The President is just a person, in spite of some people wanting to deify the current one.......his presence somewhere does not abrogate the United States Constitution.


I don't agree with you 100% on this one. I do agree that he does not trump the Constitution. He can piss off into the night for all I care. I disagree though that he's "just a person". To the rest of the world he is our leader. I wouldn't let him lead me to the food market, but still, he is the president. I think the position of the President and the status that goes with that is indeed something that puts anyone with that title in a different category.

To me it's nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and everything to do with the ability to keep the president safe. You and Wolfman are men of a different cloth. I walked around the car show he suggested and was surrounded by *people with guns*.

Was I concerned that someone was going to be shot? Not at all. I knew I was surrounded by people who have respect for a gun. There were a few undesirables there but it didn't cross my mind to worry.

Would I have that same feeling of safety and security walking around a Hell's Angel's pig roast with everyone carrying? Not a prayer. Maybe they're all a bunch of great guys, but I wouldn't have my guard down for a second because I wouldn't have the same level of confidence and trust in them.

No, I don't have a fear of citizens owning guns. I know quite a few that do. Some of them I wouldn't want tying my shoe never mind having a loaded weapon, but I also wouldn't deny them their right to bear arms as a hunter or as a means of self defense.


----------



## Rooster Cogburn (Mar 23, 2009)

Brandishing verses carrying a firearm in public. I feel that many police officiers (even in Massachusetts) will use brandishing as an excuse to remove/arrest someone who has open carry arms. Particularly if someone one calls in to complain.


----------



## rscalzo (Sep 16, 2005)

> Since when is a semi-auto AR-14 an "assault weapon


AR15 but that's another area. It became an Assault Rifle when firearm's retailers started using the term in the advertising. Originally not proper usage, it has become the common term in the description of firearms of that nature. Blaming the news media for improper usage makes no sense when the firearm's industry themselves are just as guilty.

While I support an individuals 2nd. Amendment Rights (or I wouldn't be as involved in firearms and training as I am) but I one thing somewhat odd. These same people who demand their rights under this amendment are quick to shout for the denial of rights under other Constitutional areas. I've seen many express not only outrage but the desire to strip individuals of their rights under the First amendment when the Westbrook church demonstrates at the funerals of fallen solders. while not a fan of their activities, do they have any less of a right? Just today I saw many cheering the removal and beating of a male individual allegedly involved with a internet incident and a 14 year old girl by the girl's family members. So the rights under Due Process is another area that should be denied.

The bottom line is, you can't have it both ways. You can't pick and chose what you will support and fight to retain. You take the good with the bad. Common sense might work well. Excess can be found in every area of our freedoms. don't know if that's good or bad.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

Nice posts, Wolfie, Koz, and Delta. Couldn't have said anything better myself. Two big thumbs up!

I think open carry at Presidential speaking engagements is the best way to express one's respect for the constitution. The president is surrounded at all times by hordes of some of the most highly-trained law officers on the planet, so I feel the risk of men or women peacefully carrying a firearm is minimal. I think I could have gained an iota of respect for Obama had he gone outside his speaking engagement in Phoenix and talked to the rifle-carrying man face-to-face, without the secret service disarming him.

If anything, open carry ignites good debates!


----------



## LongKnife56 (Sep 9, 2008)

I think this is going mean both sides are going to come armed to most political events in the future which will mean much more use of the second amendment.


----------



## BB-59 (Oct 19, 2005)

Lets be honest, if this happened hear in MA what would would happen?

I am all for the 2nd Amendmant, I am also for a law abiding citizens rights to carry, in this state concealed.

This really could backfire, when the liberals loose health care reform, or screw the country with a waterdown version, gun control, (or more exactly confiscation, and removal of the right in the _name of Public Safety), _will be next on the agenda.

No, will never happen? I remeber GOAL some years back had a peaceful protest at the state house and a few members were dressed as colonial miltia complete with black powder replicas, (the original assault rifles), they were told they could not have them near the state house and were ordered to secure the rifles or be arrested for disturbing the peace.

We have the most anti-gun crew in power right now, the US Attorney General is on record as saying that he wants to reinstate the Brady Bill on a permanent status.

Look at MA and many other states, we do not outright ban of remove a persons right to firearms we just slowly but surely legistlate them into oblivion.


----------



## Guest (Aug 20, 2009)

Boston Irish Lass said:


> To the rest of the world he is our leader.


No, he's not.

He's the President of the United States, meaning the 50 states that comprise the United States, plus the commonwealths and territories such as Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, etc.

The rest of the world doesn't want this guy as their leader, trust me.


----------



## Boston Irish Lass (Feb 13, 2009)

Delta784 said:


> The rest of the world doesn't want this guy as their leader, trust me.


Good Lord - I wouldn't think anyone else wants him either.


----------



## rscalzo (Sep 16, 2005)

I was never one to go out of my way to exhibit the rights and powers I possessed. I tend to lump this demonstration into the same type as the those that I've seen over the years.

I don't think anyone will stand up and say that a citizen's Constitutional Rights are not one of our most important benefits of living in this country. I just don't take the time to use them at every turn.

As much as do many will support this measure, is the same effort put toward supporting the Westboro Church and their followers demonstrating at the funeral of a soldier? In fact many cheered when legislation was passed limiting their access. no one complained. 

Wave a Nazi flag during an event while wearing a uniform of a Jewish function? Few support them. But they are exercising the same rights.

I tend to just fall back on common sense. I'm going to protect those rights and look on them as a gift. I don't try to look at them as something to be abused. Drop down to the level of the powers given when the oath of a police officer is taken. We have certain powers. should we demonstrate them at every turn? I for one say no. 

No one has discussed what hazards those demonstrators might have put those around them in? Could that show put others at a heightened risk of an incident with the potential to turn into unfortunate ending? Maybe.

So before anyone misconstrues where I stand, I've been a NRA member for more years than I can remember. I'm a officer in a very active gun club and spend many weekends teaching NRA firearm's courses to the general public for free.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

rg1283 said:


> *I am as pro 2nd amendment as anyone else*.
> 
> That being said *brandishing *a rifle in public and your
> 
> ...


*Actually you are NOT anywhere near as "PRO" second amendment with an attitude like that!*


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

BB-59 said:


> *This really could backfire*, when the liberals loose health care reform, or screw the country with a waterdown version, gun control, (or more exactly confiscation, and removal of the right in the _name of Public Safety), _*will be next* on the agenda.
> 
> .





Boston Irish Lass said:


> *To me it's nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and everything to do with the ability to keep the president safe.*
> but I also wouldn't deny them their right to bear arms as a hunter *or as a means of self defense*.





rscalzo said:


> No one has discussed *what hazards those demonstrators might have put those around them in?* Could that show put others at a heightened risk of an incident with the potential to turn into unfortunate ending? Maybe.
> 
> So before anyone misconstrues where I stand, I've been a *NRA member* for more years than I can remember. I'm a *officer* in a very active gun club and spend many weekends *teaching NRA firearm's courses* *to the general public for free*.


Okay lets remain objective...

BB59,
Nothing should be allowed to backfire, because it is now a fact of history that it happened without negative incident.
It is not next on their agenda, it is and has been on the FRONT BURNER!

BIL,
It's REALLY about the second amendment. You are still attaching a _negative_ connotation in regards to a firearm being lawfully present at a political appearance by an elected official. You are _assuming _that the presence of that firearm (and others) presents only a potential threat against the safety of the elected official. Ultimately your speaking of the right to self defense is for every lawful citizen present, not just the POTUS. 

rscalzo,
I might make a strong argument that no hazards existed at that protest, beyond what you present to the public you teach at the range.
the term "unfortunate ending" you applied to this protest ,already happened at a range in this Commonwealth. As a certified firearms instructor I can tell you with conviction; Don't compromise on safety and don't compromise on our constitutional freedom either!


----------

