This is a disturbing trend. People have been bringing open-carry guns to Obama appearances, saying that they’re simply exercising their constitutional tights. But bringing firearms to a highly-charged political situation seems to me to be a disaster waiting to happen. To tell the truth, I think that bring large numbers of loaded firearms to a “My Little Pony” rally smacks of trouble. it’s not like a Gun Show, where differences of opinion aren’t as likely and the focus is on safety.
To make matters worse, at a recent rally we had this:
The report didn’t expand upon this, but the quote is from Jefferson. While most folks recall the bit about the Tree of Liberty needing to be watereed with the blood of patriots, the actual quote is a bit longer:
I doubt if he was suggesting that patriot’s blood was needed. The clear implication is that Obama is the Tyrant. And this guy had the gun. I think that’s as close to a threat as you can get without the Secret Service taking a keen interest in you.
From the first article:
“I still have some freedoms”. Huh.
Does this trend bother anyone else? Heck, when Bush was president they didn’t want you near him unless you agreed with his philosophy. I wonder how his crowd-control would have reacted if Democrats had showed up with unconcealed carry guns.
and I didn’t realize from the title that this was abvout the same incident. Sorry about that.
I’m still bugged by this. It doesn’t matter that no laws have been broken – it’s definitely a bad situation, and one that should be denounced by all sides.
None of these people had any problems when Bush protesters were herded into “free speech zones.” Perhaps we could set up “free carry zones.” Everyone could bring their guns, and anytime someone walked by wearing a black hat they could fill that person full of holes.
If the Secret Service is unconcerned, I’m not going to worry, either.
I think it’s also worth pointing out the complete lack of actual violence associated with the protesters. It’s not the people legally demonstrating outside the event that should be a major concern – it’s your lone nutcase or violent extremists that are the problem.
Trouble waiting to happen if tempers flare in the crowd, maybe. Probably not a thread to Obama because someone who really wanted to kill him would not display a gun.
I’m only a little worried about something happening. Mostly I find it irritating because of the implied threat and the absurdity of the protests themselves.
Doesn’t sound quite the same to me. I thought the free speech zones were fenced in and designed to be far from the president and his supporters. This sounds like more of “as long as you’re not inside the building and not too close to the president, you can carry openly in front of everyone.”
Disagree. As long as the Secret Service is happy with the security situation, I’m not inclined to denounce people for showing their Second Amendment rights. Your sentiment seems to be that the First Amendment is sacrosant, but the Second Amendment should be read as advisory and desultory, somehow. Sorry – don’t agree.
I question your reading of this situation. If people brought guns to presidential events while gun control legislation was being debated, I’d be uncomfortable with it - and it would probably be counterproductive - but it would at least make some sense. When guys bring guns to health care events and start going on about how tyranny is afoot and their rights are under attack, it’s hard not to read it as an implied threat. And they come across as crazy. Crazy’s unnerving; armed and crazy makes people sweat.
My how things have changed. Just 4 years ago, people were kicked out of a Bush rally in Denver because of the bumper stickeron their car!!! I guess the risks posed by armed protestors pales in comparison to the risk of contrary views, as expressed through a bumper sticker.
I see these people as similar to those who choose not to wear motorcycle helmets in states where that is permitted. I know people who do so only because it is their right, and it somehow makes them feel more free.
They are both perfectly within their rights, and extremely stupid.
Except if you really are concerned about gun rights, one day one of these knuckleheads is going to get into a scuffle and shots are going to be fired, and federal gun control legislation is going to be passed about five minutes later.
No, it doesn’t. Unless you’re suggesting that we look only to the words on the page, and not to any Supreme Court rulings on the subject. If that’s indeed your proposed approach, then I’ll concede the Second Amendment argument while you concede that Roe v. Wade has no validity. But you can hardly point piously to the specific, limited text of the Second Amendment while simultaneously averring that the right to abortion is a valid constitutional creature.
By that I mean that freedom is about punishing people for what they do, not their ideas or what they might do. I dread your prediction coming to pass, but I’m not about to say that the cure is to restrict the very freedom that, if abused, may trigger a terrible backlash against freedom.
If another group of Arab terrorists does something terrible with an airplane, we may see a surge in attempts to racially profile airline travellers. But the solution to that isn’t to discourage Arabs from flying on planes. When that’s the argument, you nod vigorously, because you know that the vast majority of Arabs are no threat whatsoever, and because this country should not be about prejudging people based on their national origin.
But turn the issue into an exercise of Second Amendment rights, and suddenly the support for the law-abiding many withers away and the willingness to restrict them in support of nebulous public safety goals increases sharply.
It’s going to take a while for that to sink in, I think. They are all stuck in a rut with their old arguments.
IIRC, the man was standing on private property, with permission. That puts it in a completely different category than some other examples given here, where people were either on public property or private property without permission.
While I agree with your argument generally, you might want to pick a better example. Carry and possess are very different concepts under the law. Heller doesn’t address restrictions on carry, IIRC.
And if that lone nutcase or violent extremist happens to be standing next to the guy with the gun and decides to grab it and try to use it? Even if he doesn’t actually get as far as aiming and firing at the godless death-panel-loving socialist traitors, the gun could go off in a struggle over it and hit anyone nearby.
Very, very bad idea to bring a loaded weapon into such an emotionally charged, potentially volatile situation.
