U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-20-2009, 03:19 PM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,738,758 times
Reputation: 730

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
MANY showed up with weapons Monday. Did anyone pull their weapon? No. Were any threats made? No

No one threatened the president - The Secret Service took no action

Much to do about ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, IS BEING MADE BY THOSE ON THE LEFT
Indeed anda greed to what you bolded above.

However, it is those on the right that protest for gun ownership at a health care meeting.

Perhaps the righties should read the Constitution more often instead of having their ideas spoon fed to them by neocon media.

Last time I checked, health care isn't even a Constitutional Right.

 
Old 08-20-2009, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,361,805 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
However, it is those on the right that protest for gun ownership at a health care meeting.
Let's be REALLY, REALLY clear here: This WAS NOT A HEALTH CARE "MEETING".

The President was in Phoenix to give a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) annual convention. He did not speak on health care - except as it pertained to veterans including our current service members who get injured in combat.

There were protesters - protesting all sorts of things - including health care - but, LOTS of other issues too (my office is right across the street - I saw the myriad of signs).

So, for those who allege that this "health care" meeting was inappropriate for guns - they are wrong from the get go.
 
Old 08-20-2009, 09:55 PM
 
805 posts, read 1,742,527 times
Reputation: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post



What part of "right to bear arms..." did you miss?
None of it, flea-wannabe. It is clearly spelled out in amendment number two and amendment number 10 is equally clear about restricting the government from assuming powers that are not specifically granted to it by the people. Point us to the part of the Constitution that enables the infringement after it was made perfectly clear that that right shall not be infringed.

Only a pinhead lawyer could argue that what is in plain language in those two amendments is not what the law says or authors intended.

Also, you didn't answer my question about what a 'high-profile' public personality is, around which, according to you, guns cannot be carried.
 
Old 08-20-2009, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,538,289 times
Reputation: 35864
Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969 View Post

Also, you didn't answer my question about what a 'high-profile' public personality is, around which, according to you, guns cannot be carried.
Easy. Same criteria as that which is used to determine who is entitled to protection, at public expense, by the Secret Service. If the public is going to bear the expense of protecting a person, what sense does it make to have strangers without security clearance walking around with loaded firearms?
 
Old 08-20-2009, 10:56 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,361,805 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Easy. Same criteria as that which is used to determine who is entitled to protection, at public expense, by the Secret Service. If the public is going to bear the expense of protecting a person, what sense does it make to have strangers without security clearance walking around with loaded firearms?

BECAUSE - we have our FREEDOMS you obviously do not like.
 
Old 08-20-2009, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Northeast Alabama
95 posts, read 147,473 times
Reputation: 57
Okay...

First of all, I am all for gun rights. I think that law abiding citizens should have the right to own guns, and carry them under legal terms, but.....

a bunch of people carrying around guns when the POTUS is speaking makes it harder for the secret service to detect possible threats...
 
Old 08-21-2009, 01:03 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,361,805 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSouthernRide View Post
a bunch of people carrying around guns when the POTUS is speaking makes it harder for the secret service to detect possible threats...
First off - let's acknowledge those in question were actually, no where near where the President was - OK?????

Then, while the Police and Secret Service were watching the crowd, no member of law enforcement did anything - NOTHING in the slightest, to stop or question any of those carrying firearms. The showed little concern(s).

The bottom line of this story? It was a NON STORY - the leftist media in this country tried to making something - out of NOTHING.
 
Old 08-21-2009, 11:21 AM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,738,758 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
Let's be REALLY, REALLY clear here: This WAS NOT A HEALTH CARE "MEETING".

The President was in Phoenix to give a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) annual convention. He did not speak on health care - except as it pertained to veterans including our current service members who get injured in combat.

There were protesters - protesting all sorts of things - including health care - but, LOTS of other issues too (my office is right across the street - I saw the myriad of signs).

So, for those who allege that this "health care" meeting was inappropriate for guns - they are wrong from the get go.
I stand corrected.

However, it does not change my statment.

This meeting wasn't about the Second Amendment, so bringing firearms was inappropiate at best, a perfect illustration of neocon idiocy at worst.
 
Old 08-21-2009, 11:31 AM
 
48,891 posts, read 39,381,014 times
Reputation: 30553
Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
I stand corrected.

However, it does not change my statment.

This meeting wasn't about the Second Amendment, so bringing firearms was inappropiate at best, a perfect illustration of neocon idiocy at worst.
Errr...how do you know the guy was a neocon? My first guess would be an anarchist or libertarian. Heck, I know a bunch of pro-gun liberals too.

This is a pretty funny thread.
 
Old 08-21-2009, 11:39 AM
 
4,529 posts, read 4,738,758 times
Reputation: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by cp1969 View Post
None of it, flea-wannabe. It is clearly spelled out in amendment number two and amendment number 10 is equally clear about restricting the government from assuming powers that are not specifically granted to it by the people. Point us to the part of the Constitution that enables the infringement after it was made perfectly clear that that right shall not be infringed.

Only a pinhead lawyer could argue that what is in plain language in those two amendments is not what the law says or authors intended.

Also, you didn't answer my question about what a 'high-profile' public personality is, around which, according to you, guns cannot be carried.
Firstly, even the top lawyers in the country, SCOTUS, has ruled that g'ment's may make certain limitations, such as lciensing requirments, in the very same case they struck down DC's handgun ban.

Secondly, I posted the link to Title 18, Part II, the relevant LAW concerning who is to be protected by the Secret Service.

Thirdly, I love how people who have NO concepts of the Constitution and Constitutional Principles spout off Amendments like they know what they're talking about. The Constitution lays down 1. our governmental structures, responsibilities, procedures and 2, limitations as enumerated within the Bill of Rights, and all are also found in subsequent Amendments.

I'll even bet money you don't fully understand the Establishment Clause either.

However, the Law of the Land is found in the US Law Codes (as well as State Law Codes, and for each level of g'ment as well).

The Constitution does NOT reflect this Nation's Laws, it only provides a framework for Laws to operate within.

Lastly, where do you think C&C licensing originates? The Feds? No, they are state and local concerns, and come under the auspices of the 9th and 10th Amendments. One of the reasons I find it quite laughable, and ignorant, to protest 2nd Amendment rights by carrying firearms at a Presidential meeting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top