Men tote assault rifles at Obama event in Arizona!

[treemanx]

You are entitled to your opinion.........but wait!Isnt that a Constitutional right? I thought we didnt live under those anymore!

You cant even imagine what the US would be like if those two documents wernt protecting you today. Yes the system is flawed and corrupt, but the system is still there. Man, Id hate to go to war with you bud, youd throw your weapon down and say we're beat before the battle was over!

 

[TheLews]

I agree, I think the anti-2nd amendment lobists will use this as leverage to get their ideals through. It is sad it happens that way but what do you expect out of left sided asses (you know donkeys:winkkiss. I dont know if anyone caught the special on KATU a couple of months back about guns, but to any person that has a brain it was an obvious attempt to take away our rights. Non-bias media my backside.

 

[KENOC]

You are entitled to your opinion.........but wait!Isnt that a Constitutional right? I thought we didnt live under those anymore!

You cant even imagine what the US would be like if those two documents wernt protecting you today. Yes the system is flawed and corrupt, but the system is still there. Man, Id hate to go to war with you bud, youd throw your weapon down and say we're beat before the battle was over!

Nope, i would tell you we just need to practice our butts off and go to war with better weapons because the other side does not play by the rules.

 

[gunnoob75]

My point is that we no longer live under the constitution or bill of rights

We would if people would stop letting the populace step all over your rights and freedoms.

 

[Sawdust]

Ultimately the Founding Fathers knew that if the people were deprived the use/ownership of arms that a government could easily become tyrannical. They wrote the first two amendments so that we would have the law(The Constitution-the foundation of ALL our laws) on our side if We The People thought that our government was over reaching its authority. It is not necessary that we have a bloody revolution. Sometimes just showing that you are willing to take the fight that far will dissuade your opponent from attacking and end the confrontation. I believe that some of the people who bring their weapons to rallies or even presidential speeches are doing just that-reminding our government that if they won't listen to our letters, email, protests or whatever that we are a nation of individuals that will come together to fight for what our country should be.

I realize that to some out there that this attitude may seem extreme but the Second Amendment, or the whole Bill of Rights for that matter, was not written so that we could go duck hunting.

 

[treemanx]

Ultimately the Founding Fathers knew that if the people were deprived the use/ownership of arms that a government could easily become tyrannical. They wrote the first two amendments so that we would have the law(The Constitution-the foundation of ALL our laws) on our side if We The People thought that our government was over reaching its authority. It is not necessary that we have a bloody revolution. Sometimes just showing that you are willing to take the fight that far will dissuade your opponent from attacking and end the confrontation. I believe that some of the people who bring their weapons to rallies or even presidential speeches are doing just that-reminding our government that if they won't listen to our letters, email, protests or whatever that we are a nation of individuals that will come together to fight for what our country should be.

I realize that to some out there that this attitude may seem extreme but the Second Amendment, or the whole Bill of Rights for that matter, was not written so that we could go duck hunting.

+1 Thanks SawDust

 

[Mutoman]

The people who are responding negatively to this, with comments like:




Or:



IMO have allowed themselves to be convinced that our rights are really not our rights at all. To believe that these rights were handed to you by some fat sweaty politician in Washington DC sometime since you were born. The fact is these rights were given to us by our Founding Fathers, and no fear or retribution from "anti's", Presidents, or Bradys is going to stop me from excercising them.

Do you know where the power comes from that makes you want to hide your rights away in some dark corner of the States? It comes from opinions like the ones quoted above. It comes from the people who believe BS. Anti-gun's want you to have that opinion. They want you to be afraid to carry a gun ANYWHERE. Not just at a Presidential function. Its a mindset folks, and until people stop treating gun ownership like something to be ashamed of, you'll be in danger of losing your rights.

Taking that quote a little out of context aren't you Tree? What I said was "don't carry a firearm out in the open around or anywhere near the President", I did not say do not carry guns out in the open as you stated. I don't appreciate being misquoted in order for you to attempt to prove your point. Use facts, not smoke, smoke makes you look bad and lose credibility, which makes you no better than the aniti-gun idiot spewing misquoted information.

-1 credibility

 

[Sun195]

On today's "To the Point" (Reporter's Notebook, 12:42), Alan Gottleib (Second Amendment Foundation) and Paul Helmke (Brady Center) discussed this issue. Alan didn't think that open-carry was a good idea at these events but didn't believe any new laws were needed; you can guess what Paul had to say about this. At one point in the discussion, Paul seemed to concede that a concealed carry permit system that made sure people weren't crazy/criminals was acceptable - although, I'm sure in Paul's world, such a system would never actually issue any permits. Paul also resorted to an ad hominem attack on Alan's past felony "issues" - really, a cheap-shot that didn't help his argument much.

Personally, it doesn't make me comfortable seeing people show up at political rallies packing guns. It's the kind of thing I expect to see at a Hamas rally, not here. I think it would have a chilling effect on political discussion. Still, I'm not completely discounting the "right unused is a right lost" argument - I just tend to think there's a time and place for certain things. I don't think this was it.

 

[treemanx]

Taking that quote a little out of context aren't you Tree? What I said was "don't carry a firearm out in the open around or anywhere near the President", I did not say do not carry guns out in the open as you stated. I don't appreciate being misquoted in order for you to attempt to prove your point. Use facts, not smoke, smoke makes you look bad and lose credibility, which makes you no better than the aniti-gun idiot spewing misquoted information.

-1 credibility

I know what you said, and anyone who wanted the whole sentence could see your post plainly. I was paraphrasing to make a point. That part of that sentence bothered me, no matter what the end of it was. Also, If you noticed I tried to reiterate in the following paragraph that it didnt matter to me if it was outside a building where the President was speaking or anywhere else for that matter.

The fact is these rights were given to us by our Founding Fathers, and no fear or retribution from "anti's", Presidents, or Bradys is going to stop me from excercising them.

Im not trying to prove a point to anyone, Im just stating my opinion. Sorry that you feel the need to defend your own words with insults, and I can tell that my point was completely lost on you.

 

[treemanx]

Personally, it doesn't make me comfortable seeing people show up at political rallies packing guns. It's the kind of thing I expect to see at a Hamas rally, not here. I think it would have a chilling effect on political discussion. Still, I'm not completely discounting the "right unused is a right lost" argument - I just tend to think there's a time and place for certain things. I don't think this was it.

I hear what your saying, but I believe Sawdust described it well in post #45.

 

[cameronhu]

Sawdust's duck hunting comment is a good one. It does make you think.

I also recall reading somewhere that the perimeter around the president (not sure of the radius) is considered federal property, and thus carrying a firearm is prohibited within that perimeter.

One more thing to ponder: If those carrying openly happened to be a group of Arab-Americans, would support of their "exercising their rights" be as strong?

 

[fingolfen]

I've honestly got really mixed feelings about this...

From a PR standpoint - it's confrontational. Those opposed to the Second Amendment are going to try to use it against us.

From a fundamental standpoint - if the right to keep and bear arms is an "inalienable right" - then why can it be suspended because of who is passing by?

 

[treemanx]

It is a very interesting thing to think about and discuss. Im glad to see some opinions, and see the logic on both sides. An arguement can be made for or against just about anything, we just have to decide for ourselves how we feel about it. This topic includes two hotbutton issues for people here on NWFA, GUNS and OBAMA, and its cool to get your thoughts on it, thanks.

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

I will answer Cameronhu's last question.

I would support ANY law abiding US Citizen's right to legally carry anywhere the law allows.

Any other details just don't matter to me!

T_H

 

[Mutoman]

I know what you said, and anyone who wanted the whole sentence could see your post plainly. I was paraphrasing to make a point. That part of that sentence bothered me, no matter what the end of it was. Also, If you noticed I tried to reiterate in the following paragraph that it didnt matter to me if it was outside a building where the President was speaking or anywhere else for that matter.




Im not trying to prove a point to anyone, Im just stating my opinion. Sorry that you feel the need to defend your own words with insults, and I can tell that my point was completely lost on you.

-2 credibility.

 

[treemanx]

-2 credibility.

whatever man

 

[treemanx]

I will answer Cameronhu's last question.

I would support ANY law abiding US Citizen's right to legally carry anywhere the law allows.

Any other details just don't matter to me!

T_H

Yet again, I totally agree T_H. US citizens are US citizens no matter what their skin color or ethnic background. I support the right of all US citizens to exercise their rights. Period. Im not going to be afraid to do that because I think it might make someone uncomfortable, or because I was afraid Id put a spot light on it. Put a spotlight on it IMO, Id rather do that then try to hide it for fear of reprisal.

 

[Mutoman]

whatever man

+1, you're almost even again.

Lol....

 

[treemanx]

Sweet, thanks bro! Glad your not taking life to seriously!

 

[cameronhu]

Yet again, I totally agree T_H. US citizens are US citizens no matter what their skin color or ethnic background. I support the right of all US citizens to exercise their rights. Period. Im not going to be afraid to do that because I think it might make someone uncomfortable, or because I was afraid Id put a spot light on it. Put a spotlight on it IMO, Id rather do that then try to hide it for fear of reprisal.

Hmm. I guess my question wasn't so much "do you support everyone's right to carry," but rather, are there scenarios where other factors could contribute to less stalwart support of open-carry.

I think many folks believe rights can be abused. I'm _not_ saying that what this guy in Arizona did was an abuse. What I am saying is that most people draw a line somewhere on what they deem to be acceptable, and if you cross too many people's lines, there are repercussions. Perceived threats have a tendency to amplify this. -- That's why I volunteered the Arab-American scenario.

I remember defending some jackass who burned a flag in his front yard. Not because I particularly wanted to, but because I felt I had to. A lot of people who generally support the 1st amendment thought burning a flag crossed that line. And ultimately, because a number of like minded yahoos decided to torch a bunch of flags, some folks in Washington (and throughout the US) got the idea that this particular right might need to be curtailed.

I guess I see certain similarities between the two issues.

This is a good thread.