OK, fair enough. When I read RNATB’s post, I immediately thought of the classic individual rights vs. collective right argument that had been waged for years and was finally settled by Heller. But I agree that he could have meant the distinction between carrying and possessing, and mentioned militia in that context.
Just my view of Roe v. Wade, coincidentally enough!
The SCOTUS has often held that free speech rights can constitutionally be subject to “time, place and manner” restrictions. In view of that, it seems neither unconstitutional nor unreasonable to restrict gun rights in similar ways. Guns are more dangerous than words, aren’t they? (Or, if you want to get all “guns don’t kill people,” let’s say people carrying firearms are more dangerous than people mouthing off.)
Pssst . . . That was the Nazis.
Well, I didn’t want to want to give Godwin the satisfaction. 
This is manufactured news. The guy was on private property where he is allowed to be and was not deemed to be a threat to the president.
Yeah, I don’t think Jefferson had Obama in mind either.
Yeah, you have a right to bring a bright pink dildo to Grandma’s birthday party. But only a real jerk would even consider it. Stories such as these leave no doubt that we have indeed fallen deep down the rabbit hole and will soon pass Alice before we hit bottom.
Oh my God, a secret service agent was ARMED!!!
In your video all I can see is one car in the motorcade with something that may or not be a rifle pointed out one of the back windows. Have you never seen a Presidential motorcade before? That’s NORMAL. I remember a visit by Ronald Reagan to my local college campus back in the 80’s. There were snipers posted on the roofs of buildings with eapons trained down all over campus.
By the way, you DO know that the Secret Service does not take orders from the President, don’t you? They are an independent agency. What do you think was happening in that motorcade? Do you actually believe that President Obama personally ordered the SS to intimidate the crowd by “sweeping” them with sniper rifles?
What do you think should happen to that agent in the video? Should he be arrested? What exactly is your gripe here?
This is absolutely the kind of utterly contrived, puerile, manufactured outrage that is making the political right look ridiculous right now.
Because he was a racist?
You didn’t answer my other question, though. Do you think this is a smart thing to do?
Call me cynical, but I think the only reason they would show up with weaponry where Obama is speaking is to force a confrontation. I think they are trying to goad the Secret Service into taking their weapons thereby self-fulfilling the prophecy that “Obama wants to take our guns.”
You can see more clearly in the stills on this page: Secret Service Pulls Guns on Tea Party Protesters?. The eyewitness account reads “All of the vehicles had all the windows rolled down, and back hatch open on the SUVs with the men holding their, I assume assault rifes, machine guns, drawn on everyone lining the streets. Needless to say it took my breath away at the sight of them, and made my friends and I dizzy with fear.”
However, what they saw was the Secret Service Counter Assault Team, who always ride in the motorcade with windows down and weapons at the ready, as in this photo and this one. It’s Secret Service protocol and has nothing to do with protests or who happens to be President.
Well, you must be wrong then, because they didn’t force a confrontation.
Personally, I think they were doing it to get attention. Protesting is pointless unless someone pays attention to you. They hit the attention jack pot.
Y’know, I would have expected most Tea Party attendees to be able to tell that those weren’t machine guns. I’m about the furthest thing there is from a gun nut, and I still know that machine guns aren’t hand-held.
And surely, if it’s acceptable for ordinary civilians to have and use firearms, it should also be acceptable for trained law enforcement officers to have them?
So if the Klan or Illinois Nazis (I hate Illinois Nazis) show up at their next rally armed to the teeth, it would have nothing to do with making a statement. Striking teamsters manning the picket lines with baseball bats, boards with nails in them, and spiked chains–or anything similar that wouldn’t run afoul of local ordinances–that’s all well and good. Clearly they aren’t thinking of anything other than how nice it is to express their right to carry broken beer bottles. Clearly no one is thinking of a confrontation. It’s only about the attention, and since they were all out of hot pink hair dye, this was the next best thing. Any questioning of it or eyebrow raising would be so very misplaced and nothing more than manufactured news (as long as they stick to private property and not deemed a threat to the president).
Oh, and ElectricZ, would you mind if I made a slight change to your post? It might make the semanticians happy.
“Call me cynical, but I think the only reason they would show up with weaponry where Obama is speaking [is with the hope that it will end in a]confrontation. I think they are trying to goad the Secret Service into taking their weapons thereby self-fulfilling the prophecy that “Obama wants to take our guns.””
Given that your initial point was completely missed, maybe this will help.
Nobody is assuming these people are hostile to Obama, they’re making it clear themselves they’re hostile to him. This guy’s sign about tyranny and losing his rights don’t leave much room for ambiguity.
And going to a town hall meeting with a gun to support him… well, you’d better make a very clever sign or something, because on its own it doesn’t make for a very clear statement. I mean, you could carry a sign that says “Responsible gun owners backing Obama,” but there’s still the question of why you’re doing that at a health care town hall.
Well, there is the fire in a crowded theater exception, but on to the OP.
I know with some intimacy how the Secret Service operates when on detail like that, and frankly, if they were worried, they’d do something about it. If no laws are being broken, then no action needs to be taken. Period. Actually, it speaks better of Obama if nothing is done, it makes the people who think Obama’s “after their guns” look a tad foolish. If the SS thought there was a problem, those boys would deal with it. Period.
Regarding the “sniper from the back window” video. I call bullshit. My guess is that the sniper, being one of the last ones to be able to leave the area (being high on a perch and all) just jumped in the last two cars and caught the end of the motorcade so he didn’t have to wait in traffic and who knows, being human, maybe he just had to stop and take a piss. Either way, meh.
This isn’t so much as trouble waiting to happen insomuch as it is actively looking for trouble. As has been said they are hoping to create a self-fulfilling prophecy of “obama took ma’ gun” by increasing their rhetoric until the autorities have no option but to react.
Their posession of guns isn’t at all related to the debate at hand; in fact, most the arms bearers don’t even seem to have anything to say about healthcare reform, short of mubling something about ‘socialism’ and ‘liberty’ even once they are given a platform.
It’s legal to carry a chainsaw around, it might even be an appropriate statment if the president was holding a debate about forest managment policy. That doesn’t make it a good idea to carry a dangerous tool around willy nilly, especially if I’m going somewhere with the intention of stirring up trouble.
Yes, certain people are obviously hostile, at least in the political sense. (Thinking myself clever, I deliberately chose the word “hostile” without thinking of followup posts…it’s kind of a well-poisoner of a word, innit?)
However, the only other clip of someone wearing a gun that I can recall right now is a guy with a microphone. Who’s interviewing someone wearing an Obama shirt. Was he hostile? Pro-Obama? A nutjob tea-bagger? I surely don’t know. Looked to me like he was just doing his job as a reporter.
What I do know is that in every case I’ve seen – TV and print, for Obama and against Obama – these occurrences are being presented as if everyone openly carrying is not only anti-Obama, but pissed off to the point of violence. And I see that assumption in a bunch of posts in this thread. The two are not necessarily tied…but it sure does make for a simplistic and easily packaged narrative.
Yeah, I know it. I’ve toyed with what a sign might say, but had to throw out each and every thing I came up with. Fortunately, it’s not something I’m compelled to do, seeing as I don’t own a gun and thus can’t actually implement my not-so-cunning plan.
I don’t understand why the gun thing is an issue. I have a pistol. I usually carry it anywhere I’m permitted, which means anywhere that doesn’t sell alcohol or have a sign, generally. I don’t carry concealed, though I could. If I went to a rally of whatever type, I’d have my pistol, in plain sight but holstered, for no other reason than I usually carry it. The sign I carry would have nothing to do with my firearm, but with my ideology and the issues. Why is there an automatic conflation of the two items? The one may be completely separate from the other. Also, if some nosy reporter asks me why I’m wearing a gun, I’d answer BECAUSE I CAN. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO. Maybe I’m missing some issue here, but I really don’t see that the sign necessarily has anything to do with carrying weapons.
Because the sign in question was a very weasely death threat by someone carrying a death dispensing tool?