Dozen armed with guns protest Obama's speech

[David LaPell]

Dozen Armed With Guns Protest Obama Speech - Political News - FOXNews.com

[TXbug]

Sometimes it's better to use your head than it is to exercise your rights. IMHO, that was the wrong place to do what they did.

[flop-shank]

I agree. Just because I have the right to say almost anything in this country, doesn't mean I should. Idiots that make a point of open carrying at a presidential rally deserve to be political orphans who are hated by both sides of the gun control issue.

[The Big D]

Mark my words, those who choose to open carry when it's clearly inappropriate will cause many to question the wisdom of allowing open carry. You know what's next...

Be safe.

[Zilmo]

Wow, I'm actually kind of shocked by the responses here! Good for you guys!

[Dan Cash]

I suppose speaking in opposition to Obama at one of these conflabs should be curtailed because it upsets some leftist union thugs and the press?

How many of these packers were union/Obama plants? The black fellow shown on the news surely was not causing any problems with SEIU people around him and at the end was chanting right along with the union people.

I prefer concealed carry but when it is a right, use it or loose it.

[Leonard]

Not appropriate and does our cause more harm than good.

[Spotteddog]

For me it's an issue of context with open carry. And in a context that includes a President at least in my mind, the context says NO kind of carry at all.
And I would put nothing past certain organizations in an attempt to give a publicity black eye to pro 2A folks. Remember who your dealing with. YMMV?

[neiljrosen]

This will give the "Anti's" something to use against us.

[Capt Steve]

Originally Posted by neiljrosen

This will give the "Anti's" something to use against us.

+10 As someone once said: "Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean it is a good idea". As noted , the anti gun crowd will have a field day with this sort of nonsense. Sometimes the folks (who rode the short bus and ate lots of paint chips), on our side of this issue scare me to death.

[USAF385]

I'm glad most here have the same opinion I do. I'm a supporter of open carry, but I feel this is not the right place.. and all it can do is hurt pro gun issues.

I also feel it's sort of out of place as well... these are health care rallies.... not dealing with 2A issues.

In some cases I feel its meant for intimidation as well, which is not acceptable in my mind.

[willy]

Originally Posted by neiljrosen

This will give the "Anti's" something to use against us.

It sure will!
Those idiots with their guns,, waving them around and shooting them in the air, ,plus the innocent people who were shot there that day only makes gun owners look crazy!

[Amy May]

I agree that its not the best idea to be doing it in these cases.

[Zilmo]

Originally Posted by Capt Steve

Sometimes the folks (who rode the short bus and ate lots of paint chips), on our side of this issue scare me to death.

You and me both my friend. You'll find them on this very thread.

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by neiljrosen

This will give the "Anti's" something to use against us.

Yeah, it will be real easy for the anti's to point out all of the folks who got injured and/or killed at the hands of these law-breaking radicals who dared to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights in a way that most of us probably wouldn't have.




Oh, wait a minute, that never happened.

[willy]

Originally Posted by cshoff

Yeah, it will be real easy for the anti's to point out all of the folks who got injured and/or killed at the hands of these law-breaking radicals who dared to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights in a way that most of us probably wouldn't have.




Oh, wait a minute, that never happened.

I like the way you think!

[hihosilver13]

they could be plants by the anti gunners or "Acorn" to have some outrage about it to start an anti gun campain

[cshoff]

Originally Posted by willy

I like the way you think!

I'm not much on political correctness.

[BadKarma]

In Arizona its your right to open carry. I see nothing wrong with what they did at all. Here we dont freak out if we see a gun out in the open and if you do you should move to another state. Exercise your rights or lose them.

[681ismyfavorite]

exercising your right to carry a gun does not become less appropriate because somebody else doesn't like it.

its either right or wrong. and these folks were right.

[Bullseye 2620]

Well, of course these demonstrators were right in the sense that their behavior was in strict conformance with the law.

But they were very wrong, because the open carrying of any firearm near a Presidential (or any other) political rally must be interpreted for what it is: an implied threat, if not against the person of the President that day, then as a threat to ratchet up the level of conflict surrounding whatever the political issue of the day happens to be.

By bringing firearms into these settings, which are designed to air conflicting, often angry, views, those who do so are saying, "look, if you don't back down, or back off, you're likely to provoke a violent response from my side and we are ready to provide one."

Now, some will object, "well, we didn't say that."

Yes, you did. The meaning of bringing a firearm to a political event such as these town hall meetings is crystal clear. It was not a demonstration about gun rights. The purpose of bringing a weapon was to say, "Look, I am so opposed to what the other side is saying that I am prepared to use violence to stop them and to advance my political agenda."

Once in play, that scenario rapidly descends the level of political discourse between Sunnis and Shia in Iraq.

This is America, for God's sake! Whatever are these people thinking? Does anyone really want to live in a country where people routinely bring their guns to political events because they have to? That's what this behavior suggests is desirable. That is what it portends.

I live in a very rural area of Virginia, a state where where open carry is generally not restricted. Following Mr. Jefferson's counsel, I often walk these gravel roads with a Smith & Wesson revolver strapped to my hip. This simple act reaffirms a thousand year old right, wrested from kings, and satisfies my need to make a public statement. My neighbors know me and why I do this, because even here on the buckle of the Bible Belt, open carry is not the norm. So, while I walk the back roads strapped, me and my buddies at our "breakfast club," who meet almost daily at 6:30 to eat at the local restaurant in our county seat of 432 souls, all who own a helluva lot of guns, don't wear them openly at breakfast.

Why not? We have a right to, don't we?

Well, the breakfast club has discussed this. We don't feel that the right is threatened, nor that it has ever been threatened since Virginia joined the Union. But what is more, none of us wishes to scare Miz Ella or her sister into thinking that there is some sort of trouble afoot by openly displaying our weapons.

It's a matter of being polite.


'Nuff said.



Bullseye

[shortranger]

Whether proponents of open carry like it or not, there is an unavoidable public opinion at work. The public in general is not comfortable with open carry, and has not been for a long time. Even in times and areas where weaponry was generally accepted, the sight of a group of armed men usually signalled trouble. That is the reason for concealed carry in the first place.

When you go out of your way to provoke people you should not be surprised at the outcome.

David

[bk43]

I was flicking around last night and caught Wolf Blitzer talking about this. He announced that this was a very dangerous situation because these assault rifles can make bullets go very, very far. This guy with the AK style rifle could kill the president even if not close to him(auto aim bullets ya' know). His colleague opined these assault rifles can fire hundreds of rounds per minute.

I thought it was kinda' funny at the time. Not so much though when you think the guy with the rifle generated the same discussion on hundreds of MSM shows with nobody there to correct them. Bottom line...the guy hurt our cause.

In passing, on the same TV surf session I caught Chris Matthew on PMSNBC proclaiming that he is a political moderate. Huh? I'm getting so I watch these whack job channels more than Fox just for the entertainment.

Bob

[n4zov]

Those morons are not doing gun owners any favors! I do not want anybody to think they represent the typical American gun owner.

About all we need is for them to get into a confrontation with the Secret Service Presidential Protection detail.

[GM4spd]

This sort of thing does nothing to help the gun fratenity.It
just reinforces the anti's preconceived notion we are a bunch
of "nuts". Pete

[Capt Steve]

Originally Posted by BadKarma

In Arizona its your right to open carry. I see nothing wrong with what they did at all. Here we dont freak out if we see a gun out in the open and if you do you should move to another state. Exercise your rights or lose them.

A different perspective...here in Arizona, where almost no one is from, people do freak out when they see a gun in open carry. A couple of months ago I was in a supermarket and a guy was "sort of" open carrying. It was partially covered by an untucked white tee shirt but his 1911 was plainly visible to most. People of all ages were noticing and freaking out, pointing, whispering and generally fleeing the area. Since I could not tell if open carry or sloppy concealed was his intent I said nothing. Yes we are an open carry state with simple access to CCW permits but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. When I carry I carry concealed. Works for me.

[willy]

Originally Posted by Bullseye 2620

Well, of course these demonstrators were right in the sense that their behavior was in strict conformance with the law.

But they were very wrong, because the open carrying of any firearm near a Presidential (or any other) political rally must be interpreted for what it is:

----((((((( an implied threat,))))--------

if not against the person of the President that day, then as

-----((((((a threat)))))----

to ratchet up the level of conflict surrounding whatever the political issue of the day happens to be.

By bringing firearms into these settings, which are designed to air conflicting, often angry, views, those who do so are saying,

---((((((( "look, if you don't back down, or back off, you're likely to provoke a violent response from my side and we are ready to provide one."))))))----

Now, some will object, "well, we didn't say that."

Yes, you did. The meaning of bringing a firearm to a political event such as these town hall meetings is crystal clear. It was not a demonstration about gun rights. The purpose of bringing a weapon was to say,

------(((("Look, I am so opposed to what the other side is saying that I am prepared to use violence to stop them and to advance my political agenda.")))))----




Bullseye

If your not a plant from some anti 2A group sent here to be a troll.
And you really believe what you just stated here than I have to say
you have NO IDEA on why one would carry a gun!!

Do you feel threatening when you carry a gun!

Do you feel that you would use violence if someone with an opposing view didn't back down?

Do you intend to use violence to advance your political agenda?

If this is truly the way you feel ,when -YOU- carry a gun, then do the gun owners of America a favor and GET RID OF ALL YOUR GUNS!!!!!!

You ,,,,with your mind set is the reason anti gun people think ALL gun owners are crazy gun nuts!

Supporters of 2A rights would do better to distance themselves from people who think of guns like you do.
Because you are the best reason there is to totally ban all weapons!!

No one should think they are threatening because they are armed.
No more than they would feel they should drive like a nut because they are wearing a seat belt.
Take a class on CCW
And quit reading all the TACTICAL NINJA magazines out there!

[shortranger]

Do you feel threatening when you carry a gun!

Do you feel that you would use violence if someone with an opposing view didn't back down?

Do you intend to use violence to advance your political agenda?

Pay attention, Willy. In matters of perception, it's not your intent that counts, but what others think it may be. In other circumstances it's called "an appearance of impropriety." It has nothing to do with what might happen and everything to do with not giving the appearance that anything could happen. It's exactly the same reason why the Girl Scouts don't hire young male scout leaders and bosses don't interview female employees alone with the door closed.

It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong. It only matters whether people think you are. That may not fit anyone's purist philosophical system, but it's what people do. They've always done it and you aren't going to change that.

David

[safearm]

Excellent reply, David!

[Bullseye 2620]

Willie,

I'll leave your personal insults aside for a moment and try to deal with what you're saying.

1.) Of course I don't feel like a threat when I carry, either openly or concealed. I carry for self-defense and because I believe that rights must be exercised or they will wither and wilt. Nor would I threaten someone who disagreed with me politically. But this is not about me or my mind-set. This is about what the average American thinks when he or she sees someone armed at a non-gun rights focused political event. As Jeff Cooper often remarked, the unreasoning fear of guns is pathological, but, my friend, that is where most of the public is at.

2.) If you have a different way of understanding what it means when someone shows up at a town hall meeting on health care with a pistol in a tactical thigh holster and a sign that reads "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time [with the blood of patriots and tyrants (words in italics omitted on the sign)]," I would sure like to know what your way of understanding that act is. Of course it was an implied threat. Otherwise, why choose that particular quote from Mr. Jefferson?

3.) Why all of the personal insults? Please read Lee's Rules, especially Nos. 1, 2, and 3, here: http://smith-wessonforum.com/lounge/...ead-rules.html

You may not like what I say. Tough tiddly-winks. That's why it is called a discussion board. But it will not do for you to substitute personal attacks for some kind, any kind, really, of a reasoned argument. I resent being called a troll for some anti-2A group, being told to get rid of my firearms, being called the best excuse for banning all weapons, and especially, for being told that I ought to take a CCW class and stop reading "all the tactical Ninja magazines out there."

For the record, I am a long-time CCW holder in Virginia, I am a certified hunter safety instructor, including firearms law, for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and as indicated in my name on this board and my avatar, know how to shoot straight. I am active in pro-2A causes and routinely write to and call my elected public officials to advocate for that point of view, most recently, in favor of permitting people to carry in national parks and against the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General.

And, by the way, I don't read, or need to read, tactical Ninja magazines.

Frankly, sir, you have no substantial basis on which to attack either my argument or my bona fides, and so, you respond by innuendo, aspersion, and name-calling.

If you hadn't noticed, the overwhelming majority of posts to this thread are in agreement with the position I took that the protesters who brought guns to these town hall meetings did damage to how the public perceives our cause and the kind of people we, as a group, are.

It's not good to enter a battle of the wits only half prepared.


Bullseye

[willy]

Originally Posted by shortranger

Pay attention, Willy. In matters of perception, it's not your intent that counts, but what others think it may be. David

It wasn't worded as what others thought.
He wrote it as his thoughts on the open carry mind set,, as he sees it.

[shortranger]

Originally Posted by willy

It wasn't worded as what others thought.
He wrote it as his thoughts on the open carry mind set,, as he sees it.

Others perceived it one way, you perceived it another. It doesn't matter if you were the only one who correctly understood what he "really" meant, it only matters what others think he meant.

See how that works?

David

[BadKarma]

Originally Posted by Capt Steve

A different perspective...here in Arizona, where almost no one is from, people do freak out when they see a gun in open carry. A couple of months ago I was in a supermarket and a guy was "sort of" open carrying. It was partially covered by an untucked white tee shirt but his 1911 was plainly visible to most. People of all ages were noticing and freaking out, pointing, whispering and generally fleeing the area. Since I could not tell if open carry or sloppy concealed was his intent I said nothing. Yes we are an open carry state with simple access to CCW permits but sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. When I carry I carry concealed. Works for me.

More exposure = less "freaking out". 4 generation Arizonan here. Most folks here in our small corner of the state dont get bothered at all at the sight of a fun in open carry. The ones that do are usually from somewhere else and will either get used to it or can move back to where they come from.

[Bullseye 2620]

Willy,

My posts surely did indicate that I was speaking of how the public perceives open carry, and not what I think about open carry. I mean, after all, I carry openly, in appropriate surroundings, at least some of the time. The rest of the time, I carry concealed.

It wouldn't dawn on you to say, "sorry, I misread what you wrote, and apologize for calling you an anti-2A tactical Ninja wannabee troll."

I remember, as a kid, watching the Army-McCarthy hearings on the Zenith in our living room. I will never forget what I learned at the tender age of 6: some of those who wrap themselves in the flag (or the Second Amendment) are scoundrels, and they are easily identified by the lack of substance to their arguments and the shrillness with which they launch their personal invectives, innuendos, and attempts at character assassination.

As Joe Welch rebuked 'ole Tail Gunner Joe at those hearings, "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

In my limited experience, grown men apologize when they mistakenly cast aspersions on the motives and defame, in public, the character of those with whom they disagree. At least they did when Dwight Eisenhower was President.

And perhaps that is what is truly wrong with our politics today: the level of public discourse has fallen to a level worthy of only The Jerry Springer Show. I, for one, no longer intend to suffer in silence, and will continue to object to the kind of unthinking mindset that characterizes the posts that set-off this frank exchange of views.

Good day, Sir.



Bullseye

[5BeansintheWheel]

Idiots for sure, don't they know politicians rights override theirs? I have said it before and keep saying it, gun owners who don't support law abiding gun owners are are our worst enemy. Think back a couple years and that gun writer and "evil " rifles.

I have nothing but admiration for these folks, and as long as they are not breaking any laws, so what? The other side will never stop until every gun is melted down and we can't even pick up a stick or stone. Remember they know what's best for us.

[Spotteddog]

Kinda' makes one wonder if attitudes about it would be different, if Masterpiece Theater for 40 years had actors reciting Shakespeare while wearing a drop rig? If anything should have been learned from our experience last November, it's that perception IS reality in a society with a short attention span and the depth of a mud puddle.

[BarbC]

Speaking of Shakespeare, when did people stop wearing swords?

[shortranger]

Originally Posted by BarbC

Speaking of Shakespeare, when did people stop wearing swords?

Hi, Barb. Strictly speaking most men never did. Assuming you don't want a dissertation on what "under arms" means, swords were generally only seen either in war or as a badge of position, even in Shakespeare's day. Knives and daggers, surely, but swords hardly ever unless one were going off to war.

Even during Colonial days in this country there was a fair demand for small, concealable pistols for use in the city or other "polite" venues. Going heavily armed in public has never really been acceptable unless you were on your way to or from the field. Today, even in areas of the country where people are used to open carry, a man with military weaponry is going to cause someone to take notice.

David

[willy]

Originally Posted by Bullseye 2620

Willy,

--1))--My posts surely did indicate that I was speaking of how the public perceives open carry, and not what I think about open carry.



--(2)--In my limited experience, grown men apologize when they mistakenly cast aspersions on the motives and defame, in public, the character of those with whom they disagree. At least they did when Dwight Eisenhower was President.


Good day, Sir.



Bullseye

(1) Where on your post did you even remotely indicate you were referring to the public's, and not your own views?

(2)And in my experience a man sticks to his word and doesn't try to say --"that isn't what I meant"--when called on his own statements.

And for someone being so pro 2A I would think you would be trying to show the general public that a gun is not a reason for alarms to go off!
And what better way to show the public than open carry at one of these public events where NOTHING happened involving anyone who carried a gun?
What better way to show the public that everyone carrying a gun is no threat to their safety?
The more guns the general public sees, the more it will be common place and there will be less alarms going off in their heads.

[Bullseye 2620]

Willy,

Pardon me for presuming that you could draw from the context of my first post the direct inference that I was speaking of public attitudes, not my own. I guess in the great leap from A-->B, you got lost someplace around the -->.

Everyone else perfectly understood what I meant, Willy, and in any event, any lack of clarity was surely addressed in my second post.

You, and the other folks who don't seem to get what many of us are telling you--there's a time and a place for everything and you have to take your audience into account if you want to change their attitudes--should come on down here to Virginia, and join us one morning, my treat, at our breakfast club (about a pro-gun crowd as you will see anywhere), with the hog leg of your choice openly displayed. It might be illuminating for you to see how other gun owners react to that bit of social insensitivity. If these guys, all gun owners, most hunters, vets, and NRA members, "are our worst enemy" as 5Beans called them, we really are in a world of hurt. In that regard, I am looking forward to seeing what happens when 5Beans states his opinion to D.B., a decorated former Ranger, and a member of our breakfast club. I think he may have a few choice words to share with all y'all.


Bullseye


P.S.: Your not understanding what I wrote is not evidence of my backing off my initial statements. It is evidence of your not understanding what I wrote.

[Zilmo]

Originally Posted by willy

If your not a plant from some anti 2A group sent here to be a troll.
And you really believe what you just stated here than I have to say
you have NO IDEA on why one would carry a gun!!

Do you feel threatening when you carry a gun!

Do you feel that you would use violence if someone with an opposing view didn't back down?

Do you intend to use violence to advance your political agenda?

If this is truly the way you feel ,when -YOU- carry a gun, then do the gun owners of America a favor and GET RID OF ALL YOUR GUNS!!!!!!

You ,,,,with your mind set is the reason anti gun people think ALL gun owners are crazy gun nuts!

Supporters of 2A rights would do better to distance themselves from people who think of guns like you do.
Because you are the best reason there is to totally ban all weapons!!

No one should think they are threatening because they are armed.
No more than they would feel they should drive like a nut because they are wearing a seat belt.
Take a class on CCW
And quit reading all the TACTICAL NINJA magazines out there!

Give a moment or two to the angry young man,
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood,
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good.
And he sits in a room with a lock on the door,
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

[Pasifikawv]

With every right comes responsibility.

All rights should be exercised with a dose of prudence. Those that exercise their rights without regard for the greater implications create an atmosphere that places that very right at greater risk of infringement.

Did the armed protesters violate the law? No. Was it a smart decision to open carry firearms near a Presidential event or political gatherings in no way related to the RTKBA? Not by a long shot. Did the protesters do more harm than good for those of us who support the 2A and work stem off any new, unwarranted restrictions? Absolutely: they hurt our cause.

Every right comes with responsibility and those parties who open carry their firearms near Presidential events create a perception in the MSM that ALL gun owners are as equally irresponsible and imprudent... Just because it is legal doesn't make it a smart thing to do... It merely fans the flames of the anti-gun crowd...

These folks who have open carried firearms near Presidential events and political gatherings have greatly weakened the strides we have recently made as gun owners in the rhelm of public opinion and political discourse... No if, and, or, buts about it. It has damaged the standing of responsible gun ownership...

[willy]

Originally Posted by Bullseye 2620

Willy,

(1)Pardon me for presuming that you could draw from the context of my first post the direct inference that I was speaking of public attitudes, not my own.

(2) I guess in the great leap from A-->B, you got lost someplace around the -->.






Bullseye


(3)P.S.: Your not understanding what I wrote is not evidence of my backing off my initial statements. It is evidence of your not understanding what I wrote.

(1) Please point out where you were reffering to public attitudes and not your own.

(2)Sorry for getting lost between A---B but I'm just not use to turning around and backtracking back to A before getting to B.

(3)My not understanding what you wrote is evidence you can not write what you mean.

[Bullseye 2620]

My grandpa once said to me, "Don't try to teach pigs how to sing. It's extremely frustrating, and annoys the hell out of the pig."

Sorry if I annoyed, you, Willy.

I think a poll of this thread will indicate where the overwhelming majority of sentiment lies on this issue. Rather than continue to build my post count in a fruitless effort to persuade the unpersuadable, I'm going to go load up some .38 Special wadcutters.


Ta-ta!


Bullseye

[38-44HD45]

Along the lines of Pogo, I've often said that our worst enemies are our friends. Poor judgment, in my view, even though legal.

However, I'd point out something here: The leftists, whether journalists, pols or otherwise, who condemn the legal carry of firearms by nonviolent, law-abiding citizens near these "protests" are the same folks, or their literal or figurative offspring, who thought that the violent protests of the '60s were hunky-dory. So, if I follow the rationale, it's perfectly okay to throw bricks or Molotov cocktails at the police or National Guard if one is protesting a war, but it is pure evil to openly, legally, nonviolently exercise a Constitutional Right within view of a public protest of a socialist program. Sure; makes perfect sense to me...

[Spotteddog]

Nope 38/44,
The rules are absolutely NOT different for one side as opposed to the other. Just ask Bill and Bernadine!
Brilliant observation counselor...

[willy]

Originally Posted by Bullseye 2620

Ta-ta!


Bullseye

Coming from you, that reply doesn't surprise me at all

[willy]

[QUOTE=Pasifikawv;1060729]With every right comes responsibility.

All rights should be exercised with a dose of prudence. Those that exercise their rights without regard for the greater implications create an atmosphere that places that very right at greater risk of infringement.



Every right comes with responsibility and those parties who carry their firearms to political functions and near Presidential events create a perception in the MSM that ALL gun owners are as equally irresponsible and imprudent... Just because it is legal doesn't make it a smart thing to do... It merely fans the flames of the anti-gun crowd...

QUOTE]



So we should relinquish our rights so as not to upset the anti-gun crowd?

[Zilmo]

[QUOTE=willy;1060849]

Originally Posted by Pasifikawv

With every right comes responsibility.

All rights should be exercised with a dose of prudence. Those that exercise their rights without regard for the greater implications create an atmosphere that places that very right at greater risk of infringement.



Every right comes with responsibility and those parties who carry their firearms to political functions and near Presidential events create a perception in the MSM that ALL gun owners are as equally irresponsible and imprudent... Just because it is legal doesn't make it a smart thing to do... It merely fans the flames of the anti-gun crowd...

QUOTE]



So we should relinquish our rights so as not to upset the anti-gun crowd?

No Willy. Just yours.

[shortranger]

[QUOTE=willy;1060849So we should relinquish our rights so as not to upset the anti-gun crowd?[/QUOTE]

Would you care to explain how not openly carrying a weapon into a potentially volatile situation is "relinquishing our rights"?

David