This afternoon's news showed President Obama making a speech to a crowd in Arizona. Shown in the crowd were people with handguns strapped to their legs and one guy who had an assault rifle over his shoulder and ammo clips on his belt. "Open carry" of firearms is legal in Arizona.

But...we've had all kinds of discussions about things the government has done in the interest of national security. In this case, does it make sense to prohibit people with automatic weapons and ammunition within yards of the President of the U.S.? Would it be in the interest of our national security that we simply didn't permit armed people in the crowd at a Presidential speech? Or, if the speech was scheduled on federal property, where federal laws prevail? If our enemies are blowing themselves up all over the world trying to kill us, it doesn't take much of a leap to imagine one trading off his own life for that of the POTUS in such a situation.

Geez, is this what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment?

Please don't give me the "legal" and "Constitutionally permitted" arguments. I'm asking whether the actions by the armed people in the crowd makes common sense. I can't imagine those with assault rifles and ammo walk around like that to their jobs every day. My guess is that, legal or not, their bosses would find a way to make them unemployed real quick.