TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Assault Weapons at Presidential Events
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Assault Weapons at Presidential Events

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
I own two rifles and I am a halfway decent shot.
I live up in the woods where hunting is a way of life. And we are far enough away from the town and its police station that we depend on ourselves more so than folks who live in an urban or suburban area. Furthermore, the state of NH grants you the right to use deadly force in self defense on your own property. My point is that I am not "anti-gun." Still I think that these people are nuts.

Quote:
When asked why he was carrying the weapons, he told reporters: "Because I can do it...In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said. In a television interview broadcast later in the day on CNN, the man said he comes from another state where "open carry" is legal, but he was "exercising his rights as an American in Arizona."
http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2009/...-ob-002205.php

Yes it may be legal to carry weapons openly in many states, but why does someone have to "bear arms" (an AR-15 assault rifle yet!) to a rally on health care reform at which a President is speaking? Does this also mean that the wacko who went nuts at the fitness center because he had trouble finding a girlfriend would have been within his legal rights if he had stood outside the door with an Uzi?
post #2 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
I own two rifles and I am a halfway decent shot.
I live up in the woods where hunting is a way of life. And we are far enough away from the town and its police station that we depend on ourselves more so than folks who live in an urban or suburban area. Furthermore, the state of NH grants you the right to use deadly force in self defense on your own property. My point is that I am not "anti-gun." Still I think that these people are nuts.


http://thedailyvoice.com/voice/2009/...-ob-002205.php

Yes it may be legal to carry weapons openly in many states, but why does someone have to "bear arms" (an AR-15 assault rifle yet!) to a rally on health care reform at which a President is speaking? Does this also mean that the wacko who went nuts at the fitness center because he had trouble finding a girlfriend would have been within his legal rights if he had stood outside the door with an Uzi?
Absolutely! It's the American way and their right. I understand it is right there in the Constitution.
post #3 of 22
Yes, it is on the constitution, but there still need to be common sense. Presidential security should be a of utmost concern, and there is absolutely no reason to go to a presidential speech with a rifle, unless as a sign of threat. The same way I can not carry a gun into an airplane, or into a federal building, I should not be able to be in the presence of the president with a rifle.
Lets face it - it takes pointing and shooting, and the president is dead - we had this happen 4 times in American History, and we certainly don't need a fifth.
post #4 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by carolinalima View Post
Yes, it is on the constitution, but there still need to be common sense. Presidential security should be a of utmost concern, and there is absolutely no reason to go to a presidential speech with a rifle, unless as a sign of threat. The same way I can not carry a gun into an airplane, or into a federal building, I should not be able to be in the presence of the president with a rifle.
Lets face it - it takes pointing and shooting, and the president is dead - we had this happen 4 times in American History, and we certainly don't need a fifth.
In fairness, I don't think these guys were ever a threat to the President. All of the town halls I've seen so far were indoor events and these guys were outside with the protesters/supporters some distance away. If it were an outdoor event, they wouldn't let these guys within a mile or more of the President. The police watched them the whole time, but since they weren't breaking any laws and they didn't present a threat to Presidential security, they didn't mess with them.

As for the question of 'Why?' I have to think intimidation is the first thing to jump to my mind. Maybe they're thinking that nobody will try to shout them down while they're visibly armed.
post #5 of 22
Just to show a different media perspective on this exact same story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/18/dozen-protesters-guns-outside-obama-speech/?test=latestnews

What struck me was at the very end of the article (basic journalism rule: Put all the pertinent facts within the first 3-5 sentences, as most people don't read past that) was this:

Quote:

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.
"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."


As a side-note, the AR-15 that one man was carrying probably cost him well over $1000 for a base model. If it's a tricked out, competition ready rifle, he could have spent up to $1500. You may see it as an "assault rifle" because it is based on the military's M-16 (difference being that it cannot go fully automatic, it is a semi-automatic), but it's technically not. BTW, this is the type of rifle that is shot in my sport, so I do know quite a bit about it.

Anywhoo, all that being said and you all know that I'm one of those pro-gun-right-fanatics...

This is just dumb, and it puts a bad light on everyone who is there to protest the healthcare bill. It does appear to be an intimidation tactic, and as such it cheapens the argument. Just because you can legally do something, i.e. carry a firearm in plain site, doesn't mean it's a wise thing to do.
post #6 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Just to show a different media perspective on this exact same story:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/18/dozen-protesters-guns-outside-obama-speech/?test=latestnews

What struck me was at the very end of the article (basic journalism rule: Put all the pertinent facts within the first 3-5 sentences, as most people don't read past that) was this:



As a side-note, the AR-15 that one man was carrying probably cost him well over $1000 for a base model. If it's a tricked out, competition ready rifle, he could have spent up to $1500. You may see it as an "assault rifle" because it is based on the military's M-16 (difference being that it cannot go fully automatic, it is a semi-automatic), but it's technically not. BTW, this is the type of rifle that is shot in my sport, so I do know quite a bit about it.

Anywhoo, all that being said and you all know that I'm one of those pro-gun-right-fanatics...

This is just dumb, and it puts a bad light on everyone who is there to protest the healthcare bill. It does appear to be an intimidation tactic, and as such it cheapens the argument. Just because you can legally do something, i.e. carry a firearm in plain site, doesn't mean it's a wise thing to do.
Very well said Heidi. Some folks like that man just don't know or care how they are ruining things for others like yourself who know and respect firearms.
post #7 of 22
Thread Starter 
I don't have $1000-$1500 to spend on a fancy weapon. If I did I would spend about $700 to have a pistol like my step-son-in-law cop who taught me to shoot it. Obviously I'm not an expert, the news reports are calling an AR-15 an assault rifle so that was what I went by.

I also have no problem at all with people shooting for target practice, I've done it enough times myself. I was just thinking reading the news stories that if I were somewhere speaking and it was not a gun-related event, and someone saw a need to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms, I would be nervous. Heck if I were standing in a crowd and someone else were speaking and I saw people in the audience carrying weapons I'd leave. Who knows if they are playing with a full deck. IMO there's a time and place for it and rallies on health care or where a prominent person is on the podium ain't it. I think all this is going to do is be grist for the mill of the anti-gun people because it is drawing attention to a law which requires people to use common sense and responsibility, and clearly we can't rely on that these days.
post #8 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
I think all this is going to do is be grist for the mill of the anti-gun people because it is drawing attention to a law which requires people to use common sense and responsibility, and clearly we can't rely on that these days.
No wonder the NRA hasn't commented.
post #9 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
I don't have $1000-$1500 to spend on a fancy weapon. If I did I would spend about $700 to have a pistol like my step-son-in-law cop who taught me to shoot it. Obviously I'm not an expert, the news reports are calling an AR-15 an assault rifle so that was what I went by.

I also have no problem at all with people shooting for target practice, I've done it enough times myself. I was just thinking reading the news stories that if I were somewhere speaking and it was not a gun-related event, and someone saw a need to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms, I would be nervous. Heck if I were standing in a crowd and someone else were speaking and I saw people in the audience carrying weapons I'd leave. Who knows if they are playing with a full deck. IMO there's a time and place for it and rallies on health care or where a prominent person is on the podium ain't it. I think all this is going to do is be grist for the mill of the anti-gun people because it is drawing attention to a law which requires people to use common sense and responsibility, and clearly we can't rely on that these days.
Well, the media are idiots when it comes to firearms. It looks menacing, therefore it must be an "assault rifle".

But honestly, I agree with you. I would be nervous too because I don't know these people carrying their weapons in the open from Adam. Who's to say that some psycho won't use the "cover" of law-abiding citizens who are carrying their firearms as their own peaceful protest to bring complete carnage to one of these events? Sure, the President won't be in any danger, and granted he would likely be taken down rather quickly IF the law abiding people have ammunition with them (no saying that any of those firearms are loaded - I wouldn't have it loaded!) or if it's really just for show.
post #10 of 22
Honestly, I believe these "men" are carrying weapons in the open because it is illegal to show their other male body part in public.

These are the types that probably go home and beat their wives/girlfriends.

Disgusting and dangerous.

Just curious any women doing this--if so the same disgust goes out to them.
post #11 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom of Franz View Post
Honestly, I believe these "men" are carrying weapons in the open because it is illegal to show their other male body part in public.

These are the types that probably go home and beat their wives/girlfriends.

Disgusting and dangerous.

Just curious any women doing this--if so the same disgust goes out to them.
Now here is something we can completely agree on. I'd say they don't have a very good sense of self-worth without the props.
post #12 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom of Franz View Post
Honestly, I believe these "men" are carrying weapons in the open because it is illegal to show their other male body part in public.

These are the types that probably go home and beat their wives/girlfriends.

Disgusting and dangerous.

Just curious any women doing this--if so the same disgust goes out to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Now here is something we can completely agree on. I'd say they don't have a very good sense of self-worth without the props.
Perfect explanation!!
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
Absolutely! It's the American way and their right. I understand it is right there in the Constitution.
From http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment02/


Quote:
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units. Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state or private restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
(highlighting mine)

Seems to me this is not giving people the right to be openly threatening at public events, whether or not they happen to involve the President of the United States. And yes, wearing guns like they're in an "old west" movie IS treatening. I would feel threatened for sure.
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Yes it may be legal to carry weapons openly in many states, but why does someone have to "bear arms" (an AR-15 assault rifle yet!) to a rally on health care reform at which a President is speaking?
If you are, indeed, familiar with weapons, you know the AR-15 is not an "assault rifle," although it resembles one. It's just another semi-automatic rifle that looks like an M-16.

And you might also be surprised to find out the guy in question was not at an event where Obama was speaking. He was several blocks away, and he wasn't alone in being armed in that crowd.

And, most shocking of all, depending on where you saw the report, you might have seen a commentator wondering if there was an element of racism with him carrying the weapon. If you saw the item on that source, you didn't see that he was actually black himself.

And you might not have heard that a similar incident occured at the Montana event, but there were SEIU toughs who tried to rough up the protestors...until they realized a number of them were armed.
post #15 of 22
What I'd like to know, and I realize the Secret Service cannot and will not comment - I'm assuming the folks carrying rifles, even if outside the immediate event, were also being observed, extremely closely, by federal sharpshooters? From afar?

I guess I'm thinking that were there even one untoward noise or action, these guys would have been history if it even looked like they might be involved? I mean, that's another aspect, IMO - ok, their 'right', but besides the intimidation factor, talk about possibly adding unnecessary fatalities should any weird thing happen amongst the demonstrators.

I was around in 1968 - just seeing that guy carrying a rifle near a presidential event gave me chills, and I don't care who the president is/was.
post #16 of 22
I have a feeling this incidents of carrying are some sort of protest against Chris Matthews railing on some guy recently for carrying (also at a presidential event).
post #17 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
If you are, indeed, familiar with weapons, you know the AR-15 is not an "assault rifle," although it resembles one. It's just another semi-automatic rifle that looks like an M-16.
Actually, I qualified with an AR-15 "assault rifle" in the Marine Corps in 1978. The first fielded rifles of that type made by Armalite were designated AR-15, and became the M-16 when they went into use across all the armed services. There are still a few of them around.

Just being nostalgic is all
post #18 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Actually, I qualified with an AR-15 "assault rifle" in the Marine Corps in 1978. The first fielded rifles of that type made by Armalite were designated AR-15, and became the M-16 when they went into use across all the armed services. There are still a few of them around.

Just being nostalgic is all
My wife, being the puzzlemaster she is, was the fastest in her barracks at disassembling and reassembling the M-16.

Personally, I've never even fired anything that powerful.

I have a .22 target pistol. If I bought a gun for home defense (and I really should), it would be a short-barreled 20 gauge or a simple revolver.

Not a member of the NRA. Don't have a concealed carry permit. Never been hunting.

But I support the right to own and arm bears.
post #19 of 22
Quote:
it would be a short-barreled 20 gauge or a simple revolver.
If you're not set on 20 gauge, you can have both a short barrel shot-gun type device AND a simple revolver in 1 gun.

Here are your options:

http://www.taurususa.com/gun-selecto...s=41&toggle=tr

More info - here http://www.taurususa.com/video-theJudge.cfm

ETA: Oh, and best of all, no ATF AOW Tax stamp required (yet at least).

Never owned a Taurus Judge, but I've heard goog things about it as a home defense gun.
post #20 of 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
My wife, being the puzzlemaster she is, was the fastest in her barracks at disassembling and reassembling the M-16.

Personally, I've never even fired anything that powerful.

I have a .22 target pistol. If I bought a gun for home defense (and I really should), it would be a short-barreled 20 gauge or a simple revolver.

Not a member of the NRA. Don't have a concealed carry permit. Never been hunting.

But I support the right to own and arm bears.
You know what always slowed me down on the M-16 reassembly. It would seem like the simplest part. The spring loaded retention ring for putting the handguards back on. That stupid thing always gave me a fight.
post #21 of 22
When I was in the army I had more parts to clean and reassemble. M16 with an M203 grenade launcher attached to it.
http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_tod...4_09/09_08.jpg

I still want an M14.

Mike, I usually had trouble with the same thing.
post #22 of 22
Hate to break this up, guys, but maybe we could get back on topic, i.e., assault weapons at presidential events.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Assault Weapons at Presidential Events