AR-15's brought to Obama townhall.

[Crossroads Inc.]

When "everyone" tells you that, the Liberals are coming to kill granny...
When "everyone" tells you that, the Liberals are coming to take your freedoms...
When "everyone" tells you that, the Liberals are coming to take your guns..
When "everyone" tells you that, the 'president' is false and shouldn't be listened to...

What the hell do people THINK is going to happen??

[Simon_Jester]

I just have to contrast this with what went on during the Bush years where just wearing a t shirt with a "liberal" slogan would get you herded into a Free Speech zone well away from the event.

I wonder what would happen if we took the two bunches of protestors and transposed them in time, so that the guys with the AR-15s and such popped up in front of one of Bush's events?

[Glocksman]

Has there actually been any effort by his administration to legislate against guns? Or are these folks just more retarded then usual?

There's been a couple of 'toe dippings', so to speak, that resulted in the usual denials that anything of the sort was planned after the pushback started.
That said, there's also been no organized effort to push for new gun bans.

Legal or no, only a fucking idiot would open carry at an event where POTUS is.
Paraphrasing a comment I read elsewhere, if you could see the aiming points of all the LE weapons aimed at this lunatic, it'd look like he was wearing a crown of rubies.

[Wing Commander MAD]

If only we had a word to describe people like this and their actions....

I am fairly sure this qualifies as terrorism, so why aren't they getting the book thrown at them? Then again I am also certain to your average American the term terrorist refers to dirty, heathen, brown people from the ME, not godfearing, upstanding, white, Christians. (As an aside, I wander what image the term terrorist conjured in the public prior to 9/11, say 90s, 80s, 60s, etc?) Seriously, though what would happen if I went to one of the meetings and after seeing some guy doing something like this, I went to a police officer at the seen and reported him as a terrorist? I believe these actions are fitting the textbook/dictionary definition of terrorism (at least any I remember learning) to a tee (sp?), as I can see no reason to bring a weapon to a place of discussion other than to intimidate. I suppose for fun we could break it down by U.S. region.

[PeZook]

That guy seriously seemed like he saw nothing wrong with his behavior...I literally had a hard time believing what I saw in that clip.

Sure, it's legal to walk around with guns, but one has to be a complete retard not to realize that this also gives people a very good reason to be wary of you. And frankly, I don't think he actually didn't realize it, the guy is probably just an asshole who enjoys threatening people and acting macho, like those cunts who laugh at people scared of their huge and agressive dogs.

[Winston Blake]

They say the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk.

Those weapons are being brought to these events for one reason, and one reason alone: to intimidate their fellow citizens. This is no sort of patriotism.

The other quote is equally hypocritical:

"It's a political statement," he told The Boston Globe. "If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."

That quote is referring to the fact that if people are intimidated (by the government, for example) into not exercising a right (to free speech, for example), then even if the government doesn't technically break any laws, that right effectively does not exist.

In this case, people who may want to exercise their right to freedom of assembly are being intimidated (by the threat of potential force) into not exercising that right, even though the intimidation does not technically break any laws.

"It's a political statement" indeed.

[BR7]

If only we had a word to describe people like this and their actions....

It seems to me that the actions are both bad and wrong, so the word would need to combine the concepts. I propose "badong" for this use.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If only we had a word to describe people like this and their actions....

I am fairly sure this qualifies as terrorism, so why aren't they getting the book thrown at them? Then again I am also certain to your average American the term terrorist refers to dirty, heathen, brown people from the ME, not godfearing, upstanding, white, Christians. (As an aside, I wander what image the term terrorist conjured in the public prior to 9/11, say 90s, 80s, 60s, etc?) Seriously, though what would happen if I went to one of the meetings and after seeing some guy doing something like this, I went to a police officer at the seen and reported him as a terrorist? I believe these actions are fitting the textbook/dictionary definition of terrorism (at least any I remember learning) to a tee (sp?), as I can see no reason to bring a weapon to a place of discussion other than to intimidate. I suppose for fun we could break it down by U.S. region.

You're fairly sure? It seems you're only fairly sure it meets your definition of terrorism and not local, state, or federal criminal act definition which is the only thing the police can enforce. The other huge problem is he's exercising his right under the 2nd amendment which as you may or may not know is the highest law in the US.

So to answer your question a police officer would inform you that you're wrong and that there's nothing he/she can do legally.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That guy seriously seemed like he saw nothing wrong with his behavior...I literally had a hard time believing what I saw in that clip.

Sure, it's legal to walk around with guns, but one has to be a complete retard not to realize that this also gives people a very good reason to be wary of you. And frankly, I don't think he actually didn't realize it, the guy is probably just an asshole who enjoys threatening people and acting macho, like those cunts who laugh at people scared of their huge and agressive dogs.

This is common among open carry nuts who are simply confused that anyone would be alarmed that they're carrying a firearm in plain sight. You can try and reason with them and explain the fact that due to the mass shootings that happened randomly in the US the sight of a firearm in plain view causes considerable alarm. They'll then respond that those mass shootings are why they are carrying openly and they might even suggest that you thank them for having the courage to defend others should something bad happen.

[dragon]

I could see it if the rally was an NRA meeting with the POTUS but a standard town hall meeting no way.
And I actually talked to one of my friends that used to be Secret Service before he was medically retired when Bush visted Montana and somethine similar happened. In a case like this they would assigned one person to keep an eye on the person as using more than one set of eyes would weaken the perimeter else where. As it the non visible threats that tend to be dangerous.

[PeZook]

This is common among open carry nuts who are simply confused that anyone would be alarmed that they're carrying a firearm in plain sight. You can try and reason with them and explain the fact that due to the mass shootings that happened randomly in the US the sight of a firearm in plain view causes considerable alarm. They'll then respond that those mass shootings are why they are carrying openly and they might even suggest that you thank them for having the courage to defend others should something bad happen.

Of course, the only thing that carrying openly actually accomplishes is make you the first target for the psycho/terrorist/assassin you're "defending" yourself and others against. The nut/terrorist will then proceed to pick up your cool AR-15 and use it to shoot the people you decided to "defend" by being an idiot.

[Wing Commander MAD]

terrorist

• noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

— DERIVATIVES terrorism noun.

Link. I'd personally prefer the full OED, but seeing as accessing it requires membership/payment and Merriam Webster's definition is less precise and requires further definitions.

I will grant you the legal criminal act definition versus the standard english definition, though I believe mine and Mike's points are still valid. Though since we want to be nit picky the 2nd Amendment is not the highest law in the US, it is a part of the document that is viewed as having the highest legal standing in the US. I will simply attribute that to you being tired or simply being brief.

Though I have to ask, from my personal perspective, why is it that the police only seem to use their discrentionary powers with regards to the law and detaining/removing people from events only when its minorities or liberals? I don't believe you can't deny that this perception exists, as I don't think I am the only person here or elsewhere that holds that view. You yourself have said that the theres the perception in law enforcement that the right wing has been more law enforcement friendly. It stands to reason that if they view a certain side as more friendly to them, that they in turn will be more likely to be freindly and sympathetic in turn and thus biased. Besides I am willing to bet bearing rifles at a political discussion and undoubtedly alarming some people (I won't beleive you if you said not one person was alarmed either) should meet just about any place's definition of disturbing the peace.

PS: I live in the US, though that may not be readily apparent.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I will grant you the legal criminal act definition versus the standard english definition, though I believe mine and Mike's points are still valid. Though since we want to be nit picky the 2nd Amendment is not the highest law in the US, it is a part of the document that is viewed as having the highest legal standing in the US. I will simply attribute that to you being tired or simply being brief.

I didn't know answering your question was being "nitpicky". I thought you were asking a serious question, and of course you'd have to grant my answer because that is the reason why nothing is done. In order for the police to act it must meet a criminal definition and not just any definition.

Though I have to ask, from my personal perspective, why is it that the police only seem to use their discrentionary powers with regards to the law and detaining/removing people from events only when its minorities or liberals?

I could ask why is it that the media seems to only cover that? Though perhaps the several articles that cover the arrest of anti-abortion protesters has escape your thorough search...

I don't believe you can't deny that this perception exists, as I don't think I am the only person here or elsewhere that holds that view.

Another possibility is that persons of very liberal attitudes don't respect authority and will violate the law to get their message across. Can you name any laws that this gentlement is violating? When liberals are arrested it's usually because they are engaged in activity that is blatantely illegal or they ignore orders to cease their activity. Though I will admit, as I posted evidence in another thread, that double standards do exist.

You yourself have said that the theres the perception in law enforcement that the right wing has been more law enforcement friendly. It stands to reason that if they view a certain side as more friendly to them, that they in turn will be more likely to be freindly and sympathetic in turn and thus biased.

Sure, and I'm positive it happens. However, when you and others cite examples where you want people arrested for doing LEGAL things what do you expect?

Besides I am willing to bet bearing rifles at a political discussion and undoubtedly alarming some people (I won't beleive you if you said not one person was alarmed either) should meet just about any place's definition of disturbing the peace.

You'd be wise not to believe me if I said not one person was alarmed since I've been stating my opinion on open carry nuts and one of the main reasons I dislike them is because their actions alarm people...so yes that's a very very wise decision.

Moving on...

Unfortunately since open carrying is legal in Arizona and the 2nd amendment gives him that right then disturbing the peace doesn't apply until he takes action that indicates he's about to go beyond the scope. The 2nd amendment has the advantage of not having SCOTUS rulings against it that limit its abuse, such as free speech or the right to assembly.

I think there should be some limits though...but there aren't.

Like I stated in another thread SLC has a problem with a guy who will walk around during the gay pride parade wearing a pistol on each hip. In Utah it is illegal to have a loaded pistol on your person without a permit. Loaded in Utah is defined as one mechanical action will cause the pistol to fire. The revolvers he's wearing contain bullets but the chamber that would contain the bullet to be fired is empty thus nothing can be done about him even as much as I'd personally like to see him go down.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Sith, I admit that I have to agree with you on the officers can't do anything unless an actual offense is committed. Furthermore, I willl admit that I have done no research into whole police bias thing and is simply a belief that I have formed based on limited exposure, and is thus not a good thing and something of a personal matter that I should work on (gut feelings aren't a great thing to base decisions and beliefs on).

I suppose in the end I am merely frustrated with way things are. I honestly cannot beleive that these people are so clueless about what others think, that they see nothing wrong with thier actions (this coming from someone who absolutely sucks at picking up on body language by the way). I therefore, am forced to associate malice with their actions, rather than ignorance. I don't think this would be acceptable in any other western society either, and would most likely not be tolerated at all and the individuals at least detained. It to me as a layman, seems to be a case of the letter of the law interfering with the spirit of the law. Sadly, I am quite certain these idiots and the tea baggers are doing damage to the cuase of universal health care by swaying the more gullible and undereducated and outright stiffling discussion through intimidation of either the people attending or those presenting. Current political trends in the US seem to be favoring thuggery, rather than intelligent discourse, as the most effective way to run the country. I suppose the fact that the Democrats are spineless and the Republicans ruthless, is just eating away at me all this time, especially with the importance that is health care. I suppose I am misdirecting some of my ire and frustratioin, unjoustly toward law enforcement in this instance.

Edit: Typos fixed

[Count Chocula]

Legal or no, only a fucking idiot would open carry at an event where POTUS is.

The guy's actions were completely legal, and he himself was well-dressed and non-confrontational (nothing says "don't fuck with me" like slacks, an oxford, and an AR!), but...come on! He should have thought ahead two steps in the logic process and realized that, with all the acrimony and maneuvering on both political sides, bringing a rifle to any Town Hall meeting, especially one where the POTUS is, would just be dumb. He didn't break the law, but his armed presence was just as intimidating as the New Black Panther guys who were standing outside a PA polling place in November with truncheons in their hands.

If you haven't seen the video link, the man in question is black. His dress and armament would have been entirely appropriate if he were protesting, say, a KKK march. A health care forum? Not so much.

Paraphrasing a comment I read elsewhere, if you could see the aiming points of all the LE weapons aimed at this lunatic, it'd look like he was wearing a crown of rubies.

Funny story time. I lived in DC and a coworker and I went to the office to watch G.H.W. Bush's motorcade roll down Pennsylvania Avenue on Inaguration Day (1989). Our office overlooked PA Ave but was 1 block back. So, we went up to the 10th floor, cracked beers, and opened a window. Ohh the Secret Service didn't like that. One sniper/spotter team kept a bead on us for about a half hour; the spotter motioned several times for us to put down the window, but my friend and I just hoisted our beers and waved. Fun, but definitely not the smartest thing I've ever done.

[Crossroads Inc.]

That guy seriously seemed like he saw nothing wrong with his behavior...I literally had a hard time believing what I saw in that clip.

Sure, it's legal to walk around with guns, but one has to be a complete retard not to realize that this also gives people a very good reason to be wary of you. And frankly, I don't think he actually didn't realize it, the guy is probably just an asshole who enjoys threatening people and acting macho, like those cunts who laugh at people scared of their huge and agressive dogs.

He doesn't see anything wrong wiht it , because he is a "Law Abiding American!" These are the people who will tell oyu with a straight face they should be able to walk around a school wiht an AK-47 because THEY are "Law Abiding Americans!" because no one should EVER fear a "Law Abiding American!"

Keep in mind that these people are too stupid too realize that "Heath Care" has nothing to do with GUNS

[Civil War Man]

His dress and armament would have been entirely appropriate if he were protesting, say, a KKK march. A health care forum? Not so much.

Even as someone who thinks the Klan should fuck off and die, his dress and armament is not appropriate for any type of political event, especially one that is as emotionally charged as a Klan march or a health care forum. Bringing weapons to a political event is begging for something to go wrong. Any mishap (say, an accidental discharge) would threaten to make things spiral out of control. Bringing the weapon unloaded to avoid accidental discharges is just bullshit posturing. And if the carrier is emotionally invested to either side, they may start feeling the need to resort to their weapon if they feel that their opponent is a threat.

Sure, a vast majority of people would not resort to using a weapon at a health care debate, but how do you distinguish a law abiding citizen who brings an AR-15 to a rally to make a political statement from a lunatic who brings an AR-15 to a rally because he thinks that Obama wants to murder his grandmother?

[General Zod]

The guy's actions were completely legal, and he himself was well-dressed and non-confrontational (nothing says "don't fuck with me" like slacks, an oxford, and an AR!), but...come on! He should have thought ahead two steps in the logic process and realized that, with all the acrimony and maneuvering on both political sides, bringing a rifle to any Town Hall meeting, especially one where the POTUS is, would just be dumb. He didn't break the law, but his armed presence was just as intimidating as the New Black Panther guys who were standing outside a PA polling place in November with truncheons in their hands.

Who said anything about whether they were legal? As far as being well dressed I'm sure the Secret Service doesn't care if a potential assassin is wearing trackies or their Sunday best.

If you haven't seen the video link, the man in question is black. His dress and armament would have been entirely appropriate if he were protesting, say, a KKK march. A health care forum? Not so much.

The idea that an AR-15 is appropriate at any kind of protest is mind numbingly stupid.

[Bluewolf]

To surport what people have said in this thread, carrying a gun into a situation where emotions are going to be running high is never a good thing and at this rate someone is going up end up dead.

Just because something is legal does not mean its a good idea to do in certain situations either. Again, you run the risk of escalating a conflict and on top of that, your basically asnwering something you disagree with, with guns. Why do people need to carry them to a townhall meeting Chocula? Is there any fair honest reason why you should bring weapons to such meetings other than intmidation, incitment of violence or insanity? Even it it was a KKK march, its still not justified. You don't asnwer something you diagree with using weapons. Not in a civilised world anyway.

[Count Chocula]

To surport what people have said in this thread, carrying a gun into a situation where emotions are going to be running high is never a good thing and at this rate someone is going up end up dead.

Just because something is legal does not mean its a good idea to do in certain situations either. Again, you run the risk of escalating a conflict and on top of that, your basically asnwering something you disagree with, with guns. Why do people need to carry them to a townhall meeting Chocula? Is there any fair honest reason why you should bring weapons to such meetings other than intmidation, incitment of violence or insanity? Even it it was a KKK march, its still not justified. You don't asnwer something you diagree with using weapons. Not in a civilised world anyway.

I did not say it was acceptable at the Arizona VFW meeting. I don't think it's acceptable period at political gatherings, as a matter of propriety and prudence, as I also think it's a bad idea to take a pistol into a bar, sit down, and get to drinkin'. Even if it's legal.

My KKK remark was Tongue. In. Cheek. Sheesh. Next time I'll use an emoticon.

[jcow79]

As much as I agree with the general consensus that was a bonehead move I think it's being overlooked that this guys purpose according to his own words wasn't about bringing his weapon to a healthcare rally as it was to bring awareness to open carry laws. All sorts of protestors show up where ever the President visits no matter what the Presidents reason for visiting is. You'll see people holding abortion signs, anti-war messages, environmental slogans. There's always a ton of media present so it's where people go to get their message out.

After the first few people showed up with firearms and got a ton of media attention this has become motivation for a lot of 2nd Amendment advocates to show up with theirs. The guy stated that he felt that there wasn't enough awareness about open-carry even among law enforcement and that people are harassed and arrested even when within their rights. Now whether this claim has any merit I don't know, but it seems like an honest answer to me.

Is it dangerous, discourteous and moronic to bring a weapon to one of these events? Absolutely. Does it get his message out? Well the proof is there. According to the SS these guys with guns get NO WHERE near the president and the areas under SS control are considered a "federal zone" and firearms are not allowed. So these nutters get to stand in the designated protestor areas well away from the President.

[General Zod]

As much as I agree with the general consensus that was a bonehead move I think it's being overlooked that this guys purpose according to his own words wasn't about bringing his weapon to a healthcare rally as it was to bring awareness to open carry laws. All sorts of protestors show up where ever the President visits no matter what the Presidents reason for visiting is. You'll see people holding abortion signs, anti-war messages, environmental slogans. There's always a ton of media present so it's where people go to get their message out.

After the first few people showed up with firearms and got a ton of media attention this has become motivation for a lot of 2nd Amendment advocates to show up with theirs. The guy stated that he felt that there wasn't enough awareness about open-carry even among law enforcement and that people are harassed and arrested even when within their rights. Now whether this claim has any merit I don't know, but it seems like an honest answer to me.

Is it dangerous, discourteous and moronic to bring a weapon to one of these events? Absolutely. Does it get his message out? Well the proof is there. According to the SS these guys with guns get NO WHERE near the president and the areas under SS control are considered a "federal zone" and firearms are not allowed. So these nutters get to stand in the designated protestor areas well away from the President.

So he wants to raise awareness of open-carry. . .which means what? He wants people to know that they can carry whenever they want? That it's stupidly easy to carry rifles to political events and that they should clamp down on the laws? Somehow bringing a weapon to a rally with the President makes me think he's not going to be communicating the message he intended to a lot of people.

[SirNitram]

The bozo asked has posted up a YouTube video.

Link

In a YouTube video, the man who carried a semi-automatic assault rifle outside yesterday's presidential event tells fellow demonstrators "We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."

The man, only identified as "Chris," spoke against taxation: "Just because you sic the government on people doesn't make it morally OK to steal money from people. Taxation is theft."

He also said "it would be insane" not to be armed, saying he wears a gun at all times.

The video comes from a libertarian group called Freedom's Phoenix and another group called 4409, which opposes police security cameras.

Video through the link.

I think this is worth noting, though. He's basically saying, pass any law I don't like, and I will go McVeigh.

[General Zod]

So he's a Lolbertarian who opposes taxes and the entire democratic process as well? Go figure. I'm sure the Secret Service has a nice full file on him by now.

[jcow79]

So he wants to raise awareness of open-carry. . .which means what? He wants people to know that they can carry whenever they want? That it's stupidly easy to carry rifles to political events and that they should clamp down on the laws? Somehow bringing a weapon to a rally with the President makes me think he's not going to be communicating the message he intended to a lot of people.

Interview on CNN where he makes clear his opinions on open-carry? The whole nation now talking about open-carry laws? He said he wanted to bring awareness to Open-carry laws. Mission accomplished. Other protestors are probably pissed that one guy got so much press and their issues went untouched by the media.

And where exactly is this guy standing in relation to the actual POTUS event? I'm smelling a lot of media exaggeration as to these gun nuts proximity. Considering the SS's own comments about not being aware of people with guns at these events makes it sound to me like a lot of these guys could be FAR from the actual event and that the media is equating 'guy in same town with gun=guy at town hall meeting with gun' From the article cited all that's apparent is that he was in a group of protesters "near" the presidential event. So this guy is in a "protest rally" not necessarily all that "near" the President's rally.