The problem seems to be the confusion on the message the AR-15 guy is trying to send. He seems initially resolved to demonstrate that he has the right to carry his gun in Arizona, and by doing so, acclimates people to the notion that they too are allowed to carry such a weapon in plain sight, even if it means doing so in a place that sincerely freaks people out. All to, what, 'warm people up' to the idea? I can't see that being all he's trying to accomplish. He could do that at the mall, or at McDonald's, or whatever. I don't see how this helps a "pro-gun rights" agenda. If anything, it freaks people out, and will probably hurt the very cause and rights that he is visibly defending. I guess out in the open is no worse, or maybe even better, than a concealed weapon, but how many people would think twice in this day and age about voicing your potentially volatile political opinions in public if you KNEW there were going to be armed opponents (ar-15, really?) at that demonstration. How does this help his agenda, or more clearly, what the hell is this guy really after? He seems to be screwing up everything, on both sides of all issues. Bottom line, can he do this? Sure. Should he be doing it? I don't think it matters which side you're on, dude is one big monkey wrench for everyone in a time when we as a country could use anything but that.
These people that bring assault rifles are passionate family men. They are willing to do whatever it takes to stop those death death panels and keep their grandmothers alive. Have some understanding, please.
I don't subscribe to the same notions and dogmas (and fears) of the people bringing guns to the protests, but I can try to understand where they are coming from. They seem to believe that they have a strong right to bear arms in this country, that such a right is extremely important to maintain a civil society and keep the government from encroaching on individuals' civil liberties, and that government (and society?) is becoming increasingly hostile to that right. So I would imagine that recent electoral victories by liberals (who historically don't support gun rights) and all the fear-mongering with regard to socialism/fascism based on recent government actions has had a major effect on the people who feel strongly about their right to bear arms. Then, all it takes is one libertarian from New Hampshire to wear his gun while holding his tree of liberty sign outside an Obama town hall. Many liberals are scared and outraged, the media links that to another report or two of somebody with a gun at a rally, and it becomes a big story. All the people who have such strong beliefs about gun rights feel that all the negative press about the guns is more evidence that there is a movement to take their guns away, and they want to stand up for their rights. So then more and more people bring their guns to protests where its legally allowed. They're not thinking about escalating tension or danger, in fact they might believe that being armed reduces danger. Instead they are thinking about asserting their right to have those guns. It's not a political ploy to push gun rights, I doubt most of these folks even think about political games. They're just trying to make a statement and stand up for what they believe is an essential right. If that's all that is, I'm fine with it. I'd actually prefer not to make a big deal as long as they are staying where they are supposed to and carrying their guns peacefully, since the bigger deal people make of it the more they feel like their rights are being encroached upon and the more daring they might feel they need to get with their statement. I think that's when it might lead to real danger (from them or from others scared of what they might do).
Uolj; Can I ask you would you be OK with someone wearing an opposing team shirt showing up outside a team's rally carrying a gun?
That's kind of iffy. I wouldn't agree with the idea, but as long as it was legal and peaceful then I can't say that I'd make a big deal about it. The situations are a little bit different, though. Alcohol is commonly consumed at sporting events, fans commonly get rowdy and there are often fights. At protests and town hall meetings I don't think there have been that many outbreaks of violence in recent years despite the apparent increase in emotion and anger. Don't worry, I understand and agree with the reasons for not bringing a gun to one of these events. I just feel like some may not be fully appreciative of why those who do it, do it. Mine is just a guess, but I honestly don't think these people are idiots in the classic sense of the word. While I don't think a health care town hall meeting is an appropriate place for this kind of statement, I can understand those who do and I don't think such behavior is worthy of the attention and fear it is generating.
Take it however you please. The color of their skin is the only thing these two situations have in common.
I would not think the Secret Service is fine with with anyone other than law enforcement or military personnel carrying weapons anywhere near the president. I think that in cases where state law permits open-carry of guns they have to just live with it.
Wherever the President goes, that location becomes the direct jurisdiction of the Federal Governmet. And of course, guns in these areas are illegal. All of this nonsense is taking place outside of the town hall meetings.
So we start arresting people on "possibilities"? No, you don't arrest people on your personal opinion. You arrest people who are breaking the law. "Chris" the AR-15 toting guy was not breaking the law. You respect the constitution and the laws of the land, regardless if you agree with them or not. There is no comparison to the Gates situation.
But this is where the logical train falls off the tracks. There is no causal, legal, or political connection between health care reform and gun rights in any rational, legitimate sense (unless you are a genuine black helicopter type who believes in internment camps, in which case rational argument at a town hall is likely of little utility, you are better off staying home in your bunker and not wasting yours or everybody else's time. Further, there is no public safety issue requiring an armed populace to make it "safer", as thus far town halls on health care reform have not (nor have they ever in recorded history, to my knowledge) been hotbeds of crime and criminality - the security provided for such gatherings by law enforcement has been more than sufficient. Quite frankly, I cannot think of too many purposes of displaying a firearm at a political event completely unrelated to firearms, and where public security is not a threat, other than to intimidate your political foes. That sort of behavior does not have much, if any, constitutional protection.
Not that I am any kind of expert in what these people are thinking, but I believe you are missing the point. The connection is the fear that the government is intruding too far into the lives of its citizens. A massive health care overhaul that includes large amounts of government spending and brings us closer to socialized medicine is just one more perceived encroachment upon the libertarian's freedoms. The ability to own and carry a gun is a symbol of the rights that these people want to protect. Now, you might believe this is not a rational fear, which is fine, but why should your opinion on that subject be the final arbiter of right and wrong? These people have every right to their opinion as you do, and they might argue that you are not rational. The only reason one should prevent people from expressing their opinion is if it poses a real danger or is in some way against the law. In this case I don't see that as being true. By the way, in regards to the armed populace, that is not so much a specific issue of being armed at an individual event to maintain peace, but rather something that many gun rights advocate believe is necessary to prevent tyranny from the government. The comment about being armed reducing danger at a specific event was mostly just an aside. The point is that I doubt they believe that peaceably carrying a weapon adds to the danger at a peaceful event. I won't say that there isn't an element of intimidation going on. There certainly might be. I just don't see that being a significant part of the mindset of the people I've seen bringing their guns to these events.
Again - there is no political or legal connection between proposition A or proposition B. An AR-15 is no more a symbol of the current heavily regulated health care system vs. one that embraces a public option than is a Ford Pinto, a popsicle, or a piece of sandpaper. The second amendment has no connection with health care. None. Zero.
This whole "I'm just expressing my right" is sooo much bull****! more from TPM -- AZ Gun-Toters Tied to Violent 90s Era Militia It was only a matter of time. While "Chris" was the guy who carried around the assault rifle at the Obama event in Phoenix yesterday, it appears to have been another guy, Ernest Hancock, who organized the whole thing. And Hancock, who was also on the scene with a holstered handgun, turns out to have had very close ties to a 90s-era Arizona militia group called the 'Viper Militia' most of whose members were eventually sent to federal prison on various weapons and explosives charges tied to plans to bomb federal buildings. Sound familiar. In other words, the Viper Militia folks were sort of Tim McVeigh also-rans from back in the glory days. Hancock, though not indicted himself, was their main public advocate. He was clearly close to these folks while they were plotting. And now he's the guy coming up with the idea to send a bunch of guys with guns to greet President Obama. Feel better now? --------- Yeah, it's just a bunch of guys expressing their 2nd amendment rights... riiiiight.....
