Is This What They Had In Mind?

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.That's a shocker! One has to pass thru a metal detector and be searched prior to entering The PGA golf tourney...

[Guest]

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.



NO...it does not make sense !!!

I did read the following which indicated it was only one guy and the police were right with him the entire time !

"A man, who decided not to give his name, was walking around the pro-health care reform rally at 3rd and Washington streets, with a pistol on his hip, and an AR-15 (a semi-automatic assault rifle) on a strap over his shoulder.

"Because I can do it," he said when asked why he was armed. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms."

Two police officers were staying very close to the man."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/man-carrying-semi-automat_n_261279.html

none the less...a VERY STUPID IDEA !

[Guest]

The procedures followed by the Secret Service to secure a site where the President will be in the "open" are very rigorous and detailed. While it may not seem so from the press photography angles, the folks who do the security work are the best of professionals.

During my time in DC I had the pleasure of working with several Secret Service folk. They are VERY good at their jobs.....

[Guest]

In that "open carry" is legal in Arizona, can passengers carry firearms onto airplanes leaving from airports in Arizona? If not, what law or regulation trumps state law in those cases?

[Guest]

In that "open carry" is legal in Arizona, can passengers carry firearms onto airplanes leaving from airports in Arizona? If not, what law or regulation trumps state law in those cases?
Commercial Air travel is federally regulated. Transportation Security Administration and Federal Aviation Agency Regulations govern what can be brought into airport common and controlled areas.

[Guest]

Seems to be a lot of speculation it was an Obama plant in the crowd. Not surprised, they have done this before with the town halls and those that ask questions. We have a bunch of corrupt thugs from Chicago running this country.

[Guest]

That's exactly right l2. Couldn't agree with you more. There have been several plants from Obama thugs even in the non-friendly to government healthcare Town Halls.

Now they are trying to push Co-op and say it's the the public option. Amazing how dumb they think their constituents are.

[Guest]

Seems to be a lot of speculation it was an Obama plant in the crowd. Not surprised, they have done this before with the town halls and those that ask questions. We have a bunch of corrupt thugs from Chicago running this country.Just a question...if the President was there to make a speech to convince people of the veracity of the healthcare reform bill being debated in Congress, why would he purposely divert attention from that message by "planting a thug" armed with an assault rifle in the audience?

Just asking.

[Guest]

Just a question...if the President was there to make a speech to convince people of the veracity of the healthcare reform bill being debated in Congress, why would he purposely divert attention from that message by "planting a thug" armed with an assault rifle in the audience?

Just asking.
...One could ask why the President has done any number of things since elected...Just saying. :shrug:

[Guest]

Kahuna: In the thug way of thinking which prevails in this White House, the plant with gun was there to draw attention of folks to think the Conservatives who are against the bill (as well as others, but he won't admit that), that they are kooks and nuts.

Just like why the left tries to demonize Sarah Palin.

It's simply Chicago style politics. This is just part of the community organizer handbook. Obama HAS NO message. It's look at what this hand is doing while the other is sticking it to you.

[Guest]

by an extreme, usually the less than 20%. In the case of open carry, there will be those who will because they can. That would be their only message.

And I seriously doubt they were in any area cleared by the secret service for the public to be in...but I do not know.

If they were plants....no comment as enough has been said.

btk

[Guest]

QUOTE=l2ridehd;220816]Seems to be a lot of speculation it was an Obama plant in the crowd. Not surprised, they have done this before with the town halls and those that ask questions. We have a bunch of corrupt thugs from Chicago running this country.[/QUOTE]

:agree::agree:

I think it was a ploy by obama to not appear anti-gun

Yoda

[Guest]

Kahuna: In the thug way of thinking which prevails in this White House, the plant with gun was there to draw attention of folks to think the Conservatives who are against the bill (as well as others, but he won't admit that), that they are kooks and nuts.

Just like why the left tries to demonize Sarah Palin.

It's simply Chicago style politics. This is just part of the community organizer handbook. Obama HAS NO message. It's look at what this hand is doing while the other is sticking it to you.

Plants??? Chicago style thugs??? Are you serious? What decade are you living in! This is so beyond ridiculous! Do you have any proof of these accusations?

And while we're on the subject of guns... what is with these guys that have to "open carry" guns? Is this some kind of phallic symbol??? Some extension of other short comings??? :laugh:

Explain it to me because I really don't get it. But what do I know. I'm just another Chicago thug! :faint:

[Guest]

Explain it to me because I really don't get it. But what do I know. I'm just another Chicago thug! :faint:I'm a lifelong Chicago thug as well, Chels. I thought the responses alleging that the armed gunmen in the crowd were plants was a bit tortured, but I didn't say anything. There are those whose point-of-view is singular and probably always will be.

[Guest]

Well VK again we disagree. As to the "alleged" gunman, I only stated what I heard on the news. That is the reason I used the word "speculation" as we all should know by now that most news is reported with an extreme bias. As to the Chicago thug comment, I went back in your posts and you mentioned it first. In fact you noted you didn't realize how bad it was until you moved elsewhere.

However it is laughable when the last 4 governors end up in prison you really have to wonder how well educated the voting public there is. But that problem seems to have migrated to the rest of the country based on our current elected leaders.

So yes my "singular" point of view is very different then your singular point of view.

[Guest]

Let me try to make something clear.

It does not matter if AZ or anywhere else has an "open carry" law. When it comes to significant events, and that includes anywhere in the country where the President will be appearing in a public setting, the Department of Homeland Security (of which the Secret Service is a component) has final say on all security plans, dry-runs all plans, and has the authority to assume full jurisdiction if the situation so dictates to the principal federal official (almost always from the Secret Service when VIP protection is involved) who is assigned by HQ DHS .

At no time was the President in any danger from any "open carry." If there was any concern that a threat existed, the person would have been removed from the setting expeditiously and may have found himself a guest within a federal detention center for 48 hours "explaining" his actions. Risks that an armed person imply are not tolerated, so it stands to reason that any "open carry" person had been pre-cleared.

DHS and the Secret Service take this role very seriously. No one wants an accident on thier watch, and the folks who do and run this are top professionals.

[Guest]

Well VK again we disagree. As to the "alleged" gunman, I only stated what I heard on the news. That is the reason I used the word "speculation" as we all should know by now that most news is reported with an extreme bias. As to the Chicago thug comment, I went back in your posts and you mentioned it first. In fact you noted you didn't realize how bad it was until you moved elsewhere.

However it is laughable when the last 4 governors end up in prison you really have to wonder how well educated the voting public there is. But that problem seems to have migrated to the rest of the country based on our current elected leaders.

So yes my "singular" point of view is very different then your singular point of view.

Your facts are a bit off. The previous gov is still a free man, no trial yet. The previous one is in the slammer. The two before him (Jim Edgar & Jim Thompson) are private citizens and doing well.

[Guest]

Well VK again we disagree. As to the "alleged" gunman, I only stated what I heard on the news. That is the reason I used the word "speculation" as we all should know by now that most news is reported with an extreme bias. As to the Chicago thug comment, I went back in your posts and you mentioned it first. In fact you noted you didn't realize how bad it was until you moved elsewhere.

However it is laughable when the last 4 governors end up in prison you really have to wonder how well educated the voting public there is. But that problem seems to have migrated to the rest of the country based on our current elected leaders.

So yes my "singular" point of view is very different then your singular point of view.

Since it appears you have some kind of affection for VA, maybe you'll enjoy this link on the corruption there...

http://orangeva.reteaparty.com/2009/06/16/mr-eric-cantor-and-other-corrupt-virginian-politicians/

However, in all fairness, there are corrupt politicans in every state of the Union.

That said, I'll match my degree from Northwestern University up against yours any day. chilout

[Guest]

I am in favor of the right to bear arms, but toting an assault rifle, particularly if it is loaded, at a political rally is chilling. Supposedly the person had no intent to use it, but suppose some kook had wrestled it away from the person and open fired? You could hope the police would be able to stop it in time, but there are no guarantees. Innocent people could be harmed. Apparently the person was outside the building where the President was speaking, and was not (thankfully) allowed inside. But it certainly could have been intimidating to people who wanted to attend the meeting in the building. We can express our views and differences with words and placards. To me, carrying assault weapons to send a message is way over the top.

[Guest]

I am in favor of the right to bear arms, but toting an assault rifle, particularly if it is loaded, at a political rally is chilling. Supposedly the person had no intent to use it, but suppose some kook had wrestled it away from the person and open fired? You could hope the police would be able to stop it in time, but there are no guarantees. Innocent people could be harmed. Apparently the person was outside the building where the President was speaking, and was not (thankfully) allowed inside. But it certainly could have been intimidating to people who wanted to attend the meeting in the building. We can express our views and differences with words and placards. To me, carrying assault weapons to send a message is way over the top.

I agree with you and Chelsea. Moreover while the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms, common sense also should prevail but it doesn't seem to be happening. I am also surprised that the NRA is not stepping in to speak to the gun happy lunatics. Does this not make it one more reason for giving the Government chance to restrict certain types of weapons? Just my opinion but if something should ever happen God help us. Remember Presidents Ford and Regan?

[Guest]

I am in favor of the right to bear arms, but toting an assault rifle, particularly if it is loaded, at a political rally is chilling. Supposedly the person had no intent to use it, but suppose some kook had wrestled it away from the person and open fired? You could hope the police would be able to stop it in time, but there are no guarantees. Innocent people could be harmed. Apparently the person was outside the building where the President was speaking, and was not (thankfully) allowed inside. But it certainly could have been intimidating to people who wanted to attend the meeting in the building. We can express our views and differences with words and placards. To me, carrying assault weapons to send a message is way over the top.

I agree with you and Stevez's assment.

[Guest]

Plants??? Chicago style thugs??? Are you serious? What decade are you living in! This is so beyond ridiculous! Do you have any proof of these accusations?

And while we're on the subject of guns... what is with these guys that have to "open carry" guns? Is this some kind of phallic symbol??? Some extension of other short comings??? :laugh:

Explain it to me because I really don't get it. But what do I know. I'm just another Chicago thug! :faint:

I don't see the point in making a sexist remark on this subject.:shrug:

[Guest]

Well VK again we disagree. As to the "alleged" gunman, I only stated what I heard on the news. That is the reason I used the word "speculation" as we all should know by now that most news is reported with an extreme bias. As to the Chicago thug comment, I went back in your posts and you mentioned it first. In fact you noted you didn't realize how bad it was until you moved elsewhere.

However it is laughable when the last 4 governors end up in prison you really have to wonder how well educated the voting public there is. But that problem seems to have migrated to the rest of the country based on our current elected leaders.

So yes my "singular" point of view is very different then your singular point of view.

I agree 12. What I don't understand is how Daley has been able to stay out of jail. Chicago is a cesspool of politics. My vote goes to any city other than Chi Town for 2016 Olympics. :beer3::beer3:

[Guest]

Plants??? Chicago style thugs??? Are you serious? What decade are you living in! This is so beyond ridiculous! Do you have any proof of these accusations?

And while we're on the subject of guns... what is with these guys that have to "open carry" guns? Is this some kind of phallic symbol??? Some extension of other short comings??? :laugh:

Explain it to me because I really don't get it. But what do I know. I'm just another Chicago thug! :faint:Yo! Are you not the person who, a few days ago, became all knotted up over what you interpreted as a "sexist comment"???

[Guest]

"Moreover while the 2nd amendment provides the right to bear arms, common sense also should prevail but it doesn't seem to be happening."

I suspect you are not a gun enthusiast or gun sport participant or a member of the NRA or any number of other shooting organization. If you are, I am wrong.

As a gun enthusiast, active participant in many shooting sports, NRA member as well as member of several shooting clubs I am compelled to counterpoint your comment above. There are millions of gun enthusiasts, shooting multiple millions of every imaginable type of weapon and ammunition with an impeccable safety record. As with the clubs I shoot with the priority is ALWAYS safety first, and then have fun.

So my counterpoint is common sense does more than prevail in the shooting shooting sports/industry. The shooting community goes way beyond common sense in it's belief and practice.

If there is ever a violation it is very rare. I do not know the nation wide number but I can tell you the clubs I belong to for the last 55 years their safety record was and continues to be 100%.....no accidents. And I am sure that is more typical of all the organizations.

I don't know the details of those who carried what and where at the rally of subject. What I do know as Steve has very well explained, there was no threat or potential threat to the POTUS or the crowd.

How accurate the reporting is on the incident is yet, if ever to be determined.
However the individual(s) were obviously within their rights and within the law. Most of us gun enthusiasts and licensed to carry would vote they did not exercise very good judgment.

Legal gun owners and organizations in the USA are among the most responsible, safety and consideration for others people on the planet.
Like all groups there are exceptions.....they are statistically insignificant....even just one is unacceptable.

btk

[Guest]

I agree 12. What I don't understand is how Daley has been able to stay out of jail. Chicago is a cesspool of politics. My vote goes to any city other than Chi Town for 2016 Olympics. :beer3::beer3:

I hope, for financial reasons, that some other city gets the 2016 Olympics. It seems like it would be destined to be a big money loser in the end. Let some other city take the hit.

[Guest]

I agree 12. What I don't understand is how Daley has been able to stay out of jail. Chicago is a cesspool of politics. My vote goes to any city other than Chi Town for 2016 Olympics. :beer3::beer3:

Yes! Maybe the Olympics will be held in Valparaiso Indiana??? Ya think?

mmmmm ... maybe not! :a20:

Although I did hear they finally got a bus system that would take them to Chicago! Wooo hoooo! What's next? Color TV???

http://www.chicagodash.com/

[Guest]

Yo! Are you not the person who, a few days ago, became all knotted up over what you interpreted as a "sexist comment"???

Yes! That was me! So, if I'm off in my musings about why a guy wants to have the "open carry" option for guns... What is the reason??? I believe that question is still unanswered. :shrug:

Sorry if you felt this was sexist... how does it feel???