Man With Open Carry Near Obama – Horrors, Gasp, Awful!

[frazzled]

I'm just shocked to see people with the intestinal fortitude to watch MSNBC. Usually my spleen bursts and my eyes pop out about 30 seconds into viewing. I'm all for differing opinions but its like 24 hours a day of Janine Garofalo (I hope I misspelled that) on Air America. You just want to stick a rusty sppoon in your ear.

[bdickens]

Maybe the MSM is trying to get us to all shoot ourselves!

[Dave01]

MC "I was carrying a gun just last week standing right next to Rick Perry."
And you didn't cap him? what the heck???
Seriously, handguns in populated areas are for one thing only: killing people. If you think it's fine to "carry" a gun in that situation, then by extension you think it's fine to kill people. Not only is that against God's law and man's law, but for guys like PM and me, who are old enough to actually remember the Kennedy assassination(s), a guy casually bearing a gun within easy shooting range of a U.S. president of any stripe is an abomination.

This is the most depressing and outrageous viewpoint I have ever read. Seriously, it has ruined my day. Austinrealtor, I'm not sure how you managed to keep a clam and civil tongue responding to ignorance like this, but I applaud you for your effort. You might want to get your blood pressure checked though...I think it might have gone up a bit after this.

Dave

[iwannasee]

I have stood right next to Rick Perry while carrying concealed. He actually put his hand on my carry while posing for a picture. He had one of them "OH CRAP" moments, moved his hand and took picture and went on his way. No big deal for him or me.

[mikeintexas]

MC "I was carrying a gun just last week standing right next to Rick Perry."
And you didn't cap him? what the heck???
Seriously, handguns in populated areas are for one thing only: killing people. If you think it's fine to "carry" a gun in that situation, then by extension you think it's fine to kill people. Not only is that against God's law and man's law, but for guys like PM and me, who are old enough to actually remember the Kennedy assassination(s), a guy casually bearing a gun within easy shooting range of a U.S. president of any stripe is an abomination.

This is the most depressing and outrageous viewpoint I have ever read. Seriously, it has ruined my day. Austinrealtor, I'm not sure how you managed to keep a clam and civil tongue responding to ignorance like this, but I applaud you for your effort. You might want to get your blood pressure checked though...I think it might have gone up a bit after this.

Dave

I agree with Dave. MC's comments were really out of left field and uncalled for.

[suthdj]

I agree that the man was within his rights, and that the media always plays to whatever will get the most notice. But carrying a sign advocating "watering the tree of liberty" which is basically calling for violent overthrow of the government, is not a reasonable way to get anyone to see your point of view.

How does that quote calling for a violent overthrow of the government to me it says sometimes it is necessary for people to shed blood (on both sides) to insure we keep our liberty.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Thomas Jefferson, author of the United States Declaration (July 4, 1776), third President of the United States of America.

[jimlongley]

Its a simple statement. If he's within a pistol shot of the President they are going to remove the gun or him.

By what authority?

We've had multiple Presidents assassinated.

All four of them, in 100 years?

Presidents get death threats daily.

Which has no bearing on a law abiding citizen exercising his constitutional rights.

This is not your normal situation. USSS routinely perform security requests of people nearby to protect the President.

And again, we are talking about a law abiding citizen exercising a constitutional right - is there something in there that says that the secret police can suspend the constitution just because the President is around?

There was an instance at a golf course where the USSS asked those with houses on the course to pull down their blinds for a period of time.

And compliance was entirely voluntary, and some did not.

For every right there is a responsibility, and in this instance its the responsibility of the carrier to not to act like an idiot.

And I did not see him acting like an idiot, did you?

Clearly the USSS did not believe he was within threat distance, and clearly he was not acting like such, so this is an argument about nothing.

I refer you to your statement above.

I disagree well beyond respectfully.

**** Go off the deep end much? Looking to start a fight for no reason with someone who agrees with the rights of the carrier?

If you agree with the rights of the carrier, why are you argiuing that he's an idiot?

The SS has no right to ask him to put it away and he shouldn't have to obey them just because they feel like it, he was breaking no laws.

See above. He has the duty not to be less than intelligent and flash a gun within effective range of the President. As stated above, the USSS routinely ask people to take certain measures to protect the immediate safety of the President. These abridgements are temporary and reasonable, just as when police stop traffic for a motorcade. Clearly in this instance he was using both his First and Second Amendment rights in an appropriate responsible manner and again, there's no issue.

I didn't see him flash anything, and I do not see the motorcade comparison as valid. You have no right to be on the highway, that is a public thorofare that you have the privilege of using at the whim of the authorities. Carrying a gun is a right and is not to be suspended at anyone's whim.

Once again, he was not violating a law, he was acting peacefully and well within his rights. If the President is scared of law abiding citizens, then he may want to find a new career, he is not suited to our society, which may explain a few other things.

[A-R]

MC "I was carrying a gun just last week standing right next to Rick Perry."
And you didn't cap him? what the heck???
Seriously, handguns in populated areas are for one thing only: killing people. If you think it's fine to "carry" a gun in that situation, then by extension you think it's fine to kill people. Not only is that against God's law and man's law, but for guys like PM and me, who are old enough to actually remember the Kennedy assassination(s), a guy casually bearing a gun within easy shooting range of a U.S. president of any stripe is an abomination.

This is the most depressing and outrageous viewpoint I have ever read. Seriously, it has ruined my day. Austinrealtor, I'm not sure how you managed to keep a clam and civil tongue responding to ignorance like this, but I applaud you for your effort. You might want to get your blood pressure checked though...I think it might have gone up a bit after this.

Dave

I agree with Dave. MC's comments were really out of left field and uncalled for.

Dave, Mike: Thank you both.

I do much better being calm and civil in a written debate. Had I been discussing this with the other three in person over beers after working the night shift (as we did with many subjects years ago), I likely would've been less civil

MC is an ol' friend/colleague/former co-worker of mine from way back in my early newspaper days (early 1990s). He had never expressed an anti-gun viewpoint to me before (in fact, I thought I had remembered him being pro-gun back in the day). But about a month ago he and I had a tit-for-tat debate over the grammatical construction of the 2nd Amendment and how it could change the meaning (an old debate, but interesting when debated by two copy editors). He took the anti-gun side on that debate. Now this little diatribe. Most (but not all) of my former newspaper colleagues are left of center politically, so some bit of anti-gun knee-jerk reaction makes sense from them. But most are more open to listening to a well-reasoned argument such as I presented. MC for some reason seemed intent on labeling all owners of handguns as murderers. Almost made me wonder if he was pulling my leg? Not sure, and not sure I want to ask him at this point.

Anyway, interesting to witness people's true deep-rooted biases expressed so openly.

[A-R]

Personally, if I had been the agent-in-charge of the security-detail, I would not have removed his firearm.

I would, however, have bracketed him with a few agents - some overt, perhaps some less-so; a discreet word in the ear can work wonders, and that way both parties' needs are satisfied. The citizen can exercise his rights peacefully and any potential threat from that quarter towards the security of my principal can be taken care of if required - no mess, no fuss.

Smart way to handle it.

[dicion]

Ya know... people are missing the point...

It's not the guy with the obvious, non-concealed legal firearm you have to worry about. They know where he is, and you bet they'd have someone keeping an eye on him.

It's the people carrying there concealed, illegally that are the ones that the SS is worried about.

[boomerang]

Especially the ones clinging to bibles!

[dicion]

It's the true lone wolves that security details worry about, concealed or not. Most organized assassination plots generate ripples somewhere that may be picked up beforehand - but a lone, previously unknown person with a grudge who doesn't care if he dies as long as he gets a crack at the target is really bad news.

And that goes right back to the fact that Laws don't deter crime, they punish it. The punishment is supposed to be the deterrent, however, when someone like that walks in someplace with the intention of killing themselves after the deed has been done.... well, it's fair to say that they aren't deterred by anything.