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.
I'm sure this feeds right into the Brady Center's concerns in America, and yet I also strongly support this guy's right to bear arms. As a rightful and righteous gun owner myself (duh! With that online name?) I initially saw nothing but stupidity in this guy's actions.
My initlal wish that we should NEVER muss up the hair of the media passed in a few minutes though, because there is, of course, a nationwide agenda to rid this country's citizens (as well as the world's citizens) of all their firearms. The current Admin is eagerly leaning over to the left and listening intently to the UN stooge sitting there, whispering "great new policy ideas" to the willing "We Know Best" types.
GoddammUltraLibbyYuppster Types!
My initial wish was also stimulated by the fact that, by and large, we quiet gun owners simply want to be left alone if we're legally OK'd to purchase, own and carry a firearm. In my current physically disabled state, I resent the idea that I should have to defend myself with my long-lost marital arts skills. Hey; that was over 40 years ago, and even then, what would I have done against some street goblin who had an illegal and stolen sawed-off 12ga? Only stupid people bring just their hands to a gunfight! Now, with a nasty case of arthritis, what exactly am I supposed to do? Call 911? Gimmee a break!
Of course no-one has the need (for now at least) to shoulder his AR in downtown USA, and given the explosive emotions attending personal firearms, this will be seen by the vast uninformed BSMs* as a radical element showing it's ever-dangerous head.
(*BSMs: Bleeting Sheeple Masses)
I would be willing to bet my life that the gun owner in this case is a perfectly safe and mature adult, not a nut-ball; perhaps the kind of guy I might even have over for BBQ, with nary a concern that he's about to "snap" and go "postal" on anyone.
Like me, he's just concerned about the media's and the Brady Center's (and now, the Baramanista Admin's) mutual desire to regulate ALL firearms, to register them and to eventually get all semi-auto firearms, no matter what they look like, off the streets. Look at California, that outstanding bastion of "zero street crime", and it's onerous firearms regulation!!
The Admin's recent purposefullies about the percentage of guns used in Mexican crimes (they claimed 96% came from the US; in fact it was 17%, but hey; what's in a number, huh?) is indicative of the tone and direction of their intentions. This guy in Arizona is simply pushing back, and expressing his legal right.
BTW, if some true nut-ball did intent to "off" the prez, even if our legal carrier fella doesn't personally like Obama's policies, I'll also bet our man in the street would open up against some assassin, well-aimed, dropping him where he stood if he tried to kill the POTUS. I mean, can the police take care of every nit-wit with a grudge? Unlikely. And despite how we're depicted in the popular media, the vast silent majority of us gunowners can distinquish between peaceful discord and shooting someone just because we don't agree with them. What makes Liberal Dems think only they have any common sense and maturity? Ahh yes, the "We Know Best" mentality in all it's glory...
Remember: In an well-armed society, the criminals are few and far between, and politeness reigns. The numbers do not lie!
Last edited by rifleman; 08-18-2009 at 07:06 AM..
Reason: typoz
First of all, I'd like to see some evidence that this administration is after our guns. I hear that all the time, but have yet to see it proved. Additionally, since the Supreme Court definitively ruled last year that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, they CAN'T come and get them unless the Court decides to review its decision in another case. That's not likely to happen, is it?
Secondly, taking a firearm right into the presence of such a target as the President of the United States is not only foolish, it's downright dangerous for him. Consider: Once the precedent that it's ok to do so has been established, even by level-headed folks who would never dream of doing the President harm, the door is open for the nutball who WOULD harm him to do the same thing, and how could the Secret Service tell the difference until he actually opened fire at point blank range?
First of all, I'd like to see some evidence that this administration is after our guns. I hear that all the time, but have yet to see it proved. Additionally, since the Supreme Court definitively ruled last year that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, they CAN'T come and get them unless the Court decides to review its decision in another case. That's not likely to happen, is it?
#1: I agree, but there's the ever-present political hassle factor, which they willnot abandon. Just check out the perspectives and political intents of Ms. Feinstein, Chuckles Schummer and Ms. Boxer on this issue. Barama's and Holder's recent pronouncements about Mexican guns and their mutual desire to stop the illegal export of semi-autos to Mexico (actually, a tiny little problem, and not really our's to deal with) by banning all semi-autos in the US, speaks for itself.
Secondly, taking a firearm right into the presence of such a target as the President of the United States is not only foolish, it's downright dangerous for him. Consider: Once the precedent that it's ok to do so has been established, even by level-headed folks who would never dream of doing the President harm, the door is open for the nutball who WOULD harm him to do the same thing, and how could the Secret Serv ice tell the difference until he actually opened fire at point blank range?
#2: I also agree. But this is a highly charged and political world, and this guy was making a valid political statement. There he was, assault weapon on his shoulder, legally, and hey; no-one got shot! The gun did not leap off his shoulder and kill anyone! The guy did not lose his cool and spray down the audience! Amazing, huh? Not exactly what we're now relentlessly warned about in the media.
Would I want all political rallies attended by gun-totin' citizens? Heck no! For the reasons you said, yes. It truly would make it hard for the SS to determine which one was a bad guy. In fact, how do they do it now, other than by "profiling", which would still apply. Do I get some detectable evil gleam in my eye if I happen to be carrying my little "J" Frame S&W, mumbling "gotta kill! gotta kill! "to myself??
But also know; in general, firearms are already notallowed in public meetings, schools, granges, courthouses, etc. Anyone with a gun inside the building has defined his views on the laws of this country.
We legally responsible gun owners, quite simply, do not break the law. And we're in the huge majority. This guy wasn't breaking any laws either, and he pretty much proved that the simple ownership of an assault weapon is in and of itself not something to be frantic about.
BTW, mod, if this thread belongs somewhere else, please do move it; I wasn't real sure, but I do see a lot of firearms-related posts here, including home defense, best type of weapon, etc.
I would be willing to bet my life that the gun owner in this case is a perfectly safe and mature adult, not a nut-ball; perhaps the kind of guy I might even have over for BBQ, with nary a concern that he's about to "snap" and go "postal" on anyone.
Based on the video he seems like a normal guy who doesn't like where the country is headed. I'd have him bring his AR to the BBQ so we could compare. I'd like to see how a red-dot sight works that far down the rail. I like a little magnification with my sighting systems.
Thats number 2. Another guy carried a sidearm to a Obama shin dig in NH.
What people need to get out of this is that its not illegal & these guys have a right to protest as they please in a peaceful fashion.
And anybody that thinks he could get that gun in action before his head was pulped is pretty clueless. My bet would be there was several guns on him the entire time. Its not the guy carrying openly the Pres needs to be concerned with.
Cluelessness doesn't surprise me though. Its evident everywhere & right here in this thread by folks who cant see anti gun sentiment in this administration. The guy was a senator from one of the most antigun states in the union. He is surrounded by a who's who of antigun politico's in America.
It has absolutely nothing to do with gun rights. It has everything to do with the fact that some people are upset that America is becoming a more liberal and secular nation, and they hate and fear it. It really has nothing to do with this perceived "socialism", either.
It has everything to do with the right's dwindling social influence on the fabric of American society, and their loss in the "cultural" wars, which were intertwined with religion. So what do they do? Froth at the mouth in rage and get all crazy, showing up to these town hall meetings armed with guns and shouting utter nonsense.
Well said, xavierob82. I'm a strong supporter of gun rights, but that was totally inexcusable.
I for one am tired of the so-called spontaneous protests and their tactics. They don't want to discuss, they want to disrupt. Reminds me of the SA (Sturmabteilung).
Just curious.
Why is this thread here and not over on "Great Debates" or "Politics and other Controversies"? It really seems a little out of place.
I don't plan on bumping this to top again.
YMMV.
It has absolutely nothing to do with gun rights. It has everything to do with the fact that some people are upset that America is becoming a more liberal and secular nation, and they hate and fear it. It really has nothing to do with this perceived "socialism", either.
It has everything to do with the right's dwindling social influence on the fabric of American society, and their loss in the "cultural" wars, which were intertwined with religion. So what do they do? Froth at the mouth in rage and get all crazy, showing up to these town hall meetings armed with guns and shouting utter nonsense.
Funny, why is it such an issue for a normal citizen who lives there to bring a gun but its ok for dozens of strangers nobody who lives there knows to walk around armed? Personally I trust my friends & neighbors more than the Gov't thugs.
That said the publicity probably will get twisted around. Its not about right & left, its about right & wrong. The men I saw were calm & composed, not frothing at the mouth. That more fits the reaction of the small minded sheeple of both parties & directions.
If no law was broken no damage was done, its a non issue.
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.
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.
