When Does Carrying a Loaded Weapon to a Presidential Rally Become a Threat?

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 at 9:03 am

We now know that there were two men who openly carried assault rifles — CNN reports they were AR-15s — outside the Veterans of Foreign Wars hall in Phoenix where President Obama spoke yesterday. According to The Associated Press, about eight more people were carrying other types of guns.

Arizona allows people to openly carry guns, including semiautomatic assault rifles, so no one was arrested. After all, they were just exercising their Second Amendment rights, right? The man captured on camera said he was carrying his assault rifle slung over his shoulder “Because I can do it. In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.”

Meanwhile, a reader at TPM raised a good point:

“Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme was released from prison this week, after 34 years in prison. The gun she pointed at President Ford had no bullet in the firing chamber — unlike Sarah Jane Moore, she never even pulled the trigger or fired. Presumably, these gun nuts showing up for the health care events have their weapons actually loaded.”

So when does carrying a loaded weapon to a president’s speaking event become a threat?  Police officers reportedly kept an eye on the two guys with the assault rifles, but what about the other eight who just carried handguns? How many officers have to be tied up watching individuals who come to see the president fully armed? Does the right to bear arms at some point give way to the ability of police and Secret Service to reasonably protect the president?

“If we need to intervene, we will intervene at that time,” said one Arizona detective. Unless, of course, it’s too late.

Yesterday Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called on the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups to tell their members to leave their weapons at home when attending presidential events:

Bringing loaded firearms to any Presidential event endangers all in attendance. Even though our weak national and state gun laws may allow this dangerous behavior, we should use a little common sense.

Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers, thus stretching their protective efforts even thinner. The possibility that these weapons might be grabbed or stolen or accidentally mishandled increases the risks of serious injury or death to all in attendance.

The National Rifle Association and other ‘gun rights’ groups need to send a message about ‘gun responsibilities’ to their members and all gun owners. Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement, and end up stifling debate. Presidential protesters need to leave their firearms at home – no exceptions.

[This post has been updated for clarity.]

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.



Squeaky Fromme | All Days Long
Pingback posted August 18, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

[...] The Washington Independent » When Does Carrying a Loaded Weapon to … By Daphne Eviatar “Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme was released from prison this week, after 34 years in prison. The gun she pointed at President Ford had no bullet in the firing chamber — unlike Sarah Jane Moore, she never even pulled the trigger or fired. … The Washington Independent – http://washingtonindependent.com/ [...]

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

The law in Arizona allows for the possession and movement of firearms. Last I looked no one was removing the 2nd amendment or repealing the Arizona laws. The need to provoke a situation or demonstrate with guns at a presidential event seems irresponsible.

The Right wing likes to reference the founding fathers intent so I'll say I don't remember anyone carrying firearms in the room when the constitution was written or during congress as a whole. Generally citizens in populated areas didn't carry their firearms when unneeded. They had the right, but they chose responsible civil behavior.

If you want to protest taxes or health care then have debate it, contact your congressman or senator. Protest with some education and intelligence, but to go about passive aggressive with a assault rifle (or any other gun for that matter) in public during a political event and expect peace and civility to hold is just plain irresponsible. Something bad is going to happen.. not because you have the right, but because someone didn't exercise common sense.

David B.
Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

How can you “remember” something when you weren't even alive at the time. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence were written during a hot war with England, with most of the signers of the documents on the run from their British pursuers. So I have no doubt they were ARMED to the teeth when the Constitution was written.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

#1 Arizona, like a large percentage of the free states, DOES NOT require a permit to carry a firearm openly. Anyone who can legally own a firearm can carry it openly WITHOUT a permit. They DO require a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Also, and this may stun many of you, in a large percentage of states you are not required to “register” a firearm. In fact, no such thing exists in these free states.

#2 Unlike Lynette Fromme, these citizens who carried firearms did not point them at anyone. The President was inside the venue, not walking around with the protestors. These citizens were not at the speaking event they were outside. For example: If someone were standing OUTSIDE Boston Garden during a Celtics game they would not be attending the Celtics game. To be attending the Celtics game they would have to INSIDE the arena. The same goes for a Presidential venue. It's a pretty simple concept but the author doesn't seem to understand it.

Thank you for your time.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 3:42 pm

Your reference to the Founding Father's was a terrible example for your cause. The Founders may not have had firearms in the room when the Constitution was drafted (although some very likely did and such an action would not have been questioned in the least). Today, we also don't carry firearms in legislative chambers. The entire founding generation DID however openly carry firearms to ALL public gatherings and protests. The British tried to limit this by confiscating all arms and ammunition in and around Boston which was one of the biggest catalysts to cause such figures as John and Samual Adams to take up the Revolutionary cause. This resulted in other colonies following suit. But for the fact that citizens exercised their “unalienable right” to carry a firearm openly we might well all be Brits.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

ummm…the Constitution was written 4 years after the Revolution ended…look it up….

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

Only One word to characterize such a great post “WOW” that was a very interesting read
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Everything dynamic and very positively!
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it’s really helpful.
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Just wanted to say great job with the blog, today is my first visit here and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts so far
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Thanks for article. Everytime like to read you.
a href=”http://www.victoriaclassic.com”>Links of London Jewellery

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

Maybe you should go back to school. The Constitution was written after the Revolutionary war – between 1783 and 1787.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

I suppose by now we should come to expect this type of behavior from the functionly illiterate members of society raised on Fruity Pebbles with odd food colorings, meat with added hormones, produce with a minimum of fifty-six pesticides, living near Toxic waste dumps that the government and big business turn their eyes from.

Should the Government be responsible for our Health Care? YOU BET THEY SHOULD!!

But on terms WE THE PEOPLE are happy with. Not a fine print fast-paced document that is pushing too hard, Pushing on me, Pushing too hard for what they want it to be.

It is time we stood on our hind legs, read them OUR RIGHTS, and TRY to legislate them back. Government needs to step-off.
Why should we be told where we can smoke? We have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I am DONE having my constituional rights taken away by legislation that is the fashionable soap box derby in Congress. It's not in vogue to smoke, so they will stomp that freedom out, and then find another one to take away.

What next? Will government tell us how many children we can have, as China does it's people? It's just not in style to have more children than other people THINK we should have?
I am NOT for guns. But I am for FREEDOM, which we are losing at a tremendous pace.

If that happens we are no longer America. No land of the free and home of the brave!
Not a country we can be proud of. It is bad enough that we are the laughing stock around the countries of the world?

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

They didn't carry firearms to protest or passive aggressively make a point. You may have warped history a bit to meet an result. I serious doubt that anyone in the 1700s and 1800s carried firearms to prove the could or threaten (implied or direct) an elected official less they be arrested. Common sense and civility was probably more in order.

The British tried to confiscate (operational word) the firearms to limit reprisals, but again they were doing this regardless if you had them on you or not. The entire period of history and place was a brewing hot zone, but not Baghdad.. Since the US government isn't in the process of confiscating firearms in Arizona I hardly see the need to walk to a political event near the duly elected President other than to imply a threat.

You also do not have an inalienable right to a firearm since it is not a right from nature. The constitution doesn't proclaim rights as inalienable. It protects them, but not without limits.

Also -The founding fathers understood and tried to codify civil discourse as a mean to resolve issues and compromise. That has been the lessons of history from Greece through Rome. Additionally the idiots with rifles near the president and at town halls have elected representative in Congress drafting the laws to redress their issues. If the system is broken then maybe people should demand reinforcement of the constitution. No Gerrymandering, proper representative counts as specified in the document as well as revoking corporate private individual status and campaign reform/lobby reform. That would be better for the nation than running around angry – with guns – with no real idea of what is wrong.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

What freedoms have you lost? Oh, the big bad government tells you where to smoke? Well guess what sugar, you don't have the right to endanger others… which is what second-hand smoke does.

I find your paranoia to be laughable in the extreme… ESPECIALLY when you say we are the laughingstock of the world. If anything, the article you are replying to goes to show how many freedoms we do have… free enough to carry an assualt rifle around a venue where a heavily threatened President is speaking? That is enough to make us a laughingstock of a lot of countries.

I'm all for the Second amendment, as I am for the First, but I strongly disagree with the notion that you need to exercise the Second to exercise the First… that is, that you need to carry a loaded weapon to protest against the President.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

Where were you the last eight years. So all of a sudden you wake up. Please tell me why now? The last eight years did huge damage to your precious rights and yet all I heard from the passive aggressive gun toting revolutionaries were cheers.

You lost habeas corpus, you had unregulated wire tapping, almost had military police action on domestic soil, had senate ratified conventions and treaties nullified by a president (which they cannot do), deregulations of industries at the your expense (Communications, Financial, Media,) wars and uncontrolled spending with tax relief to the rich, the sell off of natural resources at cut rate prices, neuter-ization and politicization of the Justice Department, and the list goes on and on. SO all of a sudden there is revolutionary outrage when someone tries to fix an unregulated industry who makes increasing profits by denying you medical coverage and reducing service while raising prices or tries to inforce TARP as passed by Congress or tries to prevent the economic failure which the last eight years brought on.

How can you make health care more profitable? 1) By more people purchasing insurance (which isn't the case) or rigging the system, reduce service, deny claims, not pay doctors and drop the very people who need the coverage after paying 20 years into it.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

Weapons – assault weapons – openly demonstrated near a presidential speaking engagement (where the president is the first black president ever elected to that position) should rightfully be interpreted as a provocation. Not an act or safeguard of self-defense, which is what the 2nd Amendment intended. You can be certain this would never have happened in the Bush days. That gun-toter would have been dealt with swiftly and harshly, Abu Ghraib style. Ask Dick Cheney.

Showing ammo where the current president appears is a new brand of KKK rally.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

You are so very wrong.
The right to have and carry arms is most certainly an “Unalienable Right”. Unalienable rights as referenced by the the committee drafting the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson, John Adams, and Franklin) were understood, as you stated, to be natural and God given rights that should be and are granted all people absent tyranny.

These same Founders used as their foundation for their political views the works or Aristotle, Cicero and Locke all of which declared unequivocally that the right to bear arms in ones defense comes “from nature itself” (Cicero).

If anyone will take any time at all to actually read the writings of ANY of the Founders you will see time and again the reason for which the Second Amendment was adopted. It was to prevent a government from EVER AGAIN suppressing the rights of its citizenry.

There was in fact a debate among the Founders as to whether there should even be a Second Amendment (or a Bill of Rights at all). The debate was that one side felt that such a positive declaration of a Rights was unneccessary because the rights were self evident. They felt that the Constitution meant what it said namely that ALL rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government were reserved for the People (via the States). The other side however was less trusting of the interpretation of future governments. They wanted to assure that certain fundamental rights such as free speech, press, and the right to keep and bear arms were undeniably protected in the Constitution.

To sum it up, the right of those citizens who carried firearms openly was EXACTLY what the Founders wanted to protect. The right of the individual to be able to stand up and visibly demonstrate to their government when they feel that there rights are being slowly (or rapidly) invaded. Read the United States Constitution again. There are NO limits placed on the right of law abiding citizens to own and carry firearms. NONE! Some local jurisdictions and administrative bodies have made limitations. But the Founders went out of their way to get it in writing that the right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be INFRINGED. Not be Infringed means something quite different than limitation.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 5:38 pm

How long was Reagan outside the hotel in 1981?
How long was John Hinkley pointing the gun at Reagan?
How many shots did Hinkley get off with his revolver?
How many people were hit?

It just takes one person, five seconds, and a little bad luck.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

Did you notice that the guy on CNN actually carrying the firearms was an African American in a white shirt and tie?

I am not so sure that comparing a black man in business atire to a KKK rally is a good argument.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 5:43 pm

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.”

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

These people are insane. In the coming months, I believe one of these nuts will shoot at Obama or someone else in the federal government. I fear for us all.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 5:47 pm

One lone black dude with ammo against a sea of white right nuts with arms who listen to Glenn Beck et al…erm…I'm gonna stick to my statement. The old administration would have dealt a severe blow to all of those crazies.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 5:55 pm

The “one lone black dude” AGAINST a sea of white right nuts…

What on earth are you talking about? The entire story is about the “one lone black dude”

The old administration could not, would not have done anything. What could they have done? Why would the old administration even care if there was a “lone black dude” outside of an arena, a mile or so away and never in view of the President?
They wouldn't! Get yourself together, get off the anti-depressants and other prescriptions that are giving you a wrped sense of reality and go take a walk.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

The NRA likes to say that their members are responsible gun owners, yet bringing a loaded assault weapon into a crowd where one cannot guarantee full control of that weapon is indeed, irresponsible at best. Rights are not absolute. They come with reponsibility, and all it would take is one mishap at one of these gatherings to further the case for tighter gun control. This is one of those cases where, just because you can…doesn't mean you should.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 6:09 pm

Not that it matters but since everyone seems to be making a central point in their argument: no one knows if the firearm was loaded. If someone has a link to a quote by the man that says it was loaded please post it. Otherwise stop making up facts.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 7:07 pm

1:52 in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGUfsfJTX88

Chris Matthews: “Was your gun loaded today?”
William Kostric: “Wow. Who would be silly enough to carry an unloaded firearm?”

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 7:15 pm

I am a white vietnam veteran and my wife calls me a gun nut, due to my owning to many guns. But at least I have enough respect for our President and firearms to know what common sense is.
Obama has been handed one of the toughest jobs in our history. He has been in office 7 months and I feel he's done as much as anyone could have done to help our country out. Limbough, Hennedy and Beck are doing all they can to pollute the minds of Americans and if things don't calm down, they will get what they secretly want. Obama has the biggest target on his back in history and I know if people are allowed to carry weapons around him sooner or later it will end in disaster.
Where will we be if that happens, 1 step forward, 10 steps back.
Wake up talk radio before you open you foul mouths.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

No, the guy in Arizona. The one all the fuss is about.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

i.e. the one who was carrying an “assault rifle”. And the fact that you linked to clip where Chris Mathews is ranting is laughable. And so are the tingle's going up his legs.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 8:10 pm


These were not assault rifles. There is no such thing as a 'semi-automatic assault rifle.' An assault rifle by definition is capable of full-automatic or burst fire.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

It becomes a threat when it happens in a state without an open carry law. However it is constitutional in all 50 states because of the second amendment. Show me where in the constitution it states otherwise?

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 9:12 pm

It is extremely important that some odd members of society get over their irrational fear of guns. They have been a serious problem and a threat to the liberties we enjoy as Americans. The best way to do this is to bring them (guns) out of the closet and into the open to prove that they are completely safe when in the hands of decent citizens.

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 9:15 pm

You're kidding right? You only care about one of the guys that's coming to a Presidential address armed?

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 9:58 pm

It's inalienable right, not unalienable right, have you read the constitution?

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 9:59 pm

It's not paranoia it's disgust!

Perhaps you don't live in a state that has laws that doesn't allow smoking on any public sidewalk, street, park, or any building?

With pending legislation to ban people from smoking in their OWN cars. Is is now law in THIS state that no person can be hired within any federal state, county or city agency that uses any type of tobacco….period.

So you can't smoke inside or outside. Now they want to say I can't smoke in my car to add to the law that states that you cannot smoke in a car if there are children in the car? I'm not for that, but why should they be forced by law?

Would you like if people weren't hired in your state because they had a beer at home on the weekend? We are subject to surprise drug testing in this state, and if you have any type of alcohol residue, medication, even cold medication in your blood, you are suspended without pay until it is “resolved” to THEIR satisfaction.

Smoke isn't the only thing that endangers others..bub!! Or perhaps you thinks it's okay for you to have YOUR rights, but not for me to have MINE?

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 10:19 pm

Where was I? Serving my country. Thank you for making all the points that I did not have time to do.
My outrage is not sudden nor is it a narrow outcry from my own soap box. My point is/was/has been….we need to do something constructive about these issues instead of arguing on a stupid website. Reading one rude person after another try to prove who is right is a waste of time.

I don't have a gun and would never own one. But I don't want my RIGHT to have one taken from me.

logging off ~~

Comment posted August 18, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

MOREOVER…….I don't know HOW you can talk to my cute little dimpled cheeks like that?

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 3:52 am

This is a sign that Americans hae lost control of themselves with free speech taken to extreme. People are carrying guns with no consequences to this dengerous behavior. Untill some one dies from this madness before attention is brought to it. America does not need to fight terrorists outside the country. The Americans have their terrorist right here roaming the streets with guns. America has become the jester of the world. I used to be proud of this country.

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 7:07 am

Kamaonu, True Americans value our Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd amendment, far more than your fickle sense of pride in America. If big bad guns are that scary to you, please move to a “civilized” European country where people get knifed at a soccer matches and in parks. It is MUCH safer there…. :P

The Washington Independent » When Does Carrying a Loaded Weapon to … | Does when
Pingback posted August 19, 2009 @ 11:11 am

[...] the rest here:  The Washington Independent » When Does Carrying a Loaded Weapon to … Share and [...]

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

You falling behind here. For every protester with a gun (loaded or unloaded) someone has to watch them. The more that show the harder it is for security teams to define the good guys from the one bad guy who will take advantage of the situation. It's all a bad idea. I promise you someone is going to get hurt unnecessarily. It will either be someone who is a bit over the top and joining in on the “protest” First time I have ever seen someone protest when there wasn't anything to protest) or Law enforcement separating someone from their brains due to unexpected movement. Owning a gun requires control and the brain to be engaged.

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 1:33 pm

Where were you over the last 8 years when Bush was ripping up the constitution? Habeas Corpus? Ever hear of it? How about wiretapping of Americans without court order or oversight? How about politicization of a full branch of government – Dept. of Justice? How about falsifying facts to start a war and lying to our representatives about it? How about nullifying ratified treaties and conventions – to justify torture? How about ignoring congressional subpoenas? How about arresting of protesters for wearing t-shirts with anti-bush slogans? Do you realize that Bush and Cheney basically threw out a major portion of the Magna Carta which is almost 800 years of tradition and a basis for the constitution? Wake up. The really bad government was voted out and left a torn constitution and much wreckage to be cleared, patched and painted.

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 1:34 pm

Actually he was one of quite a few AND the only black guy.

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 1:41 pm

Guns aren't display items nor accessories. You make this sound like your being repressed or something. They are lethal weapons and should be treated like that. You don't see soldiers (not in a combat zone) handling weapons for no particular reason other than to be able to. They treat them with the highest respect and responsibility. Why do people think that they have the right to both bear arms and shut off responsible behavior at the same time?

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 1:45 pm

You might have the right to bear arms, but that does not absolve you from being a responsible citizen nor does it give you the right to trample on other peoples right to life, liberty or security. There is a happy medium, but somehow some people think that owning a gun adds weight to their point of view. Sorry, but I don't it and probably soon some nut at these faux gun demonstrations will exercise their fantasy of the 60th amendment (the right to shoot anyone they don't like).

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

Here is the difference of why the guys who brought guns to the rally were different than Squeeky Fromme.

The men carrying were following the 4 rules of gun safety and thus were no threat.

All guns are always considered loaded whether they are or not so they must be treated with care. (Those guys looked like they kept their guns in safe positions.)
Never let the barrel point at anything you are not willing to destroy. (no guns were pointed at anyone)
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. (fingers never approached the trigger)
Always be sure of your target and what's beyond it. (never even showed as if they were targeting anything)

Squeeky Fromme violated the law by threatening the President by pointing the gun at him, which would be automatically assumed loaded, she put her finger on the trigger which is looked as if was going to shoot and apparently she was pretty sure of her target (though she didn't have to be, the first one or two were enough). By taking the aggressive stance of breaking gun rules she should have gone to prison as any reasonable law abiding individual would see she was guilty.

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 6:55 pm

Actually Squeeky did follow all the rules until she didn't.

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

True, but these aren't really rifles either. They are assault styled arms with similar specs less the full auto or burst. They are built for close in targets and designed for maximum damage. The curved clip was designed to provide maximum capacity with minimum size and impact in tight environments. The entire design has evolved for use in combat and not hunting or sport. It has the “it” factor amongst gun owners. I sometimes think the dorkier the owner (non-military) the more likely they own one.

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

Actually we have proof she didn't follow the rules whereas we have proof that these guys at the rally did follow the rules. When her nemesis showed himself then she broke all the rules. These guys did nothing when their “nemesis” showed himself. There is a world of difference between the two situations. If you put these guys in the same category as Squeeky Fromme then you have to put the Police and Secret Service in the same category. They all carry guns, they are all loaded, and using your logic could go nuts on the President at any time. But that sort of logic is totally rediculous. These guys were following the law to the T, whereas Squeeky probably never heard, or cared about gun safety or the law.

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 8:18 pm

Actually soldiers are active at recreational shooting and hunting and consider them a respectful tool and a grown up's toy just like a sports car or a new power tool. Go to a F Class Shoot, or 1000 yd match, or a 200 yd match. Plenty of good times, stories, and Military men there (out of uniform) enjoying the sport of shooting just like normal people would.

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

Actually these rifles are used in hunting and sport. F Class Shoots are dominated by AR-15s. The varmint/prairie dog hunting world which is made up of 100 to 500 yd shots have many participants using AR style guns. Woodchucks and even deer are taken by AR Rifles. These rifles have as far or farther effective range as most “hunting rifles”. A high capacity magazine is just a holder of rounds. Yes the military started the AR platform development but the civilian side furthered the development for their uses and some guys just want to not load a clip every 10 shots. Personal preference. Your ignorance is showing.

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

Actually they did carry firearms openly and hidden. They loved their sidearms as an agrarian society and for self defense against thugs. DC was not the Urban site it is today. Not only thugs were a threat but other congressmen were a threat. Some arguments were settled by “Do you want to take this outside?” The implication of a potential duel. Quite common at the time, treated seriously, but not to be used too much. It was an accepted method of defending one's honor and reputation among gentlemen. Pistols at Dawn anyone?

Comment posted August 19, 2009 @ 9:47 pm

This is typical liberal media speak when the question of the public's safety is automatically questioned when LAW ABIDING citizens are carrying firearms and in a LEGAL manner.

They broke no law.

They fired no round or rounds.

They offered no visible signs of menace or nuisance.

And yet this rag demonizes them for simply doing what they have a legal right
to do- a right that the courts in this nation have upheld time and time again.

Comment posted August 20, 2009 @ 2:55 am

Cyrano is correct. While the typical East Bloc AK is an inaccurate piece of (%*(%() (but reliable), the AR-15/M-16 is a very accurate firearm (in fact its very precision is its weak point: too sensitive to dirt). The CQB arms you're talking about would be things like the MP5 or just maybe the M-4 carbine- in one case firing pistol ammo and in the other firing 5.56 from a short barrel (= inadequate velocity = *less* 'damage'). The curved magazine (NOT a 'clip') evolved simply because tapered or rimmed cartridges naturally stack in a curve- I have a 1921 Winchester .22 with a 'banana clip.'

Personally I find the AR-15 more comfortable at the shoulder than an old-fashioned stock (which is itself derived from 19th-century military rifles), and its light weight is really appreciated if you're hiking any distance. The only drawback to using an AR-15 for hunting is that the standard 5.56/.223 is too small for deer (in fact illegal in many states); but one can get AR-15s in more powerful chamberings, like .243 Winchester or 6.8mm Remington SPC.

Comment posted August 20, 2009 @ 7:11 pm

Oh yeah… it's common sense to walk outside to political rallies with loaded automatic weapons “just for show”. Who thinks that is cool? It's not about being liberal or conservative. It's about being stupid and cruel. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. It's reckless and dangerous. Why do you think public schools outlaw weapons? Honestly would any of these LAW ABIDING citizens take an automatic weapon into a nearby middle school, and simply go away un-arrested? Huh, didn't think so. There should be nothing legal about exploiting our Constitutional laws like that.
Furthermore, I doubt any of the great American presidents of the past (from Washington to Jefferson to Lincoln) would coolly give a speech or make a public appearance if they knew that there were people in the audience with the kinds of weapons we have now. The “arms” of today are not the “arms” they had in mind. This is not the 19th or 18th century anymore people. It is NOT ok to abuse rights that people fought and gave their lives for.

Comment posted August 20, 2009 @ 11:04 pm

It becomes a threat when the person is a criminal. Otherwise, it's not a threat. When does a car become a threat? I think we should ban cars. Cars kill people, thousands of people, every year.

Comment posted August 21, 2009 @ 2:25 am

Dear Kat, the next time you invoke History, you'd better do your research first.
The founding fathers OPENLY carried arms in this great nation as a deterrant against
many foes, most noticeably that of old King George.
When next you are visiting west Texas, look me up. I'll be happy to take you hunting
or shooting so we can rid your fear of inanimate objects. Deal?

Comment posted August 21, 2009 @ 2:38 am

Liberals would like all laws to be “relative” to the situation. Thus making a socialist dictatorship a reality.

For example… if attending a town hall event of a liberal, you must not speak out against any liberal ideas, that would be “un-american” and maybe illegal.

If you happen to kill a new born child after birth, it's ok if the mom was trying to abort it anyway.

If you are a conservative, it's OK to sick the IRS on you, and have your FBI records delivered to the liberal presidents White House. If you're a liberal, the government cannot even arrest you for openly supporting a terrorist financially.

If you're a liberal, you can detain U.S. citizens who have done nothing wrong, just because of how they look, like FDR did with that Japanese-Americans in WWII. If you're a conservative, you must avoid even asking questions of people who look different and are not citizens, for security reasons, even though a very specific profile of individuals just murdered 3000 Americans.

If you're a liberal, you can be in the KKK and apologize and everything is ok. If you're a conservative, and you say a single nice thing about a former KKK member, you're a racist.

If you're a liberal, you can ignore the first and second amendment rights of citizens. If you're a conservative, you have to respect non-existing forth amendment rights of non-citizens.

If you're a liberal, you can make up rights, like the right to “health care” and insist that it entitles you to free health care.

Hey, wait a minute. If the fact that something is a right means that the government has to provide it for me, then i might go along with this…

I have an absolute right, granted by the U.S. Constitution, to keep and bear arms. Therefore, I am, according to liberal logic, entitled to have the government buy me all the guns that I want.

Comment posted August 21, 2009 @ 2:49 am

Actually, they were likely loaded “semi-automatic” weapons. Not that i don't like “automatic” weapons, but they are getting hard to come by.

It's very cool. To bear arms is the single most fundamental right we have. You would be living in a dictatorship today without them.

Liberal believe that “circumstance” and “context” dictate when rights can be exercised. So did a lot of famous people, like FDR when he locked up Japanese Americans. Like Stalin, like Mao, like… well, i won't say the last, but needless to say, ever dictator that has ever lived has FIRST taken away the citizens right to keep and bear arms.

Um… Chances are that many people in the audience to see Jefferson and Lincoln were very well armed with the best weapons of the day. You're kind of lacking in any historical knowledge, i see. I sat through a speech by a VERY famous and outspoken celebrity recently, as well as our governor, our senator, and others, fully armed, and they (i stress THEY) felt as safe as any human being could be.

You see, they had a couple of thousand good armed American around them, ready to protect each other and them against evil. If a bad person had showed up, we would have been FAR more effective than a 100 secret service agents.

If you do not exercise a right, you ARE abusing it.

Comment posted August 21, 2009 @ 2:54 am

This is really a bizarre, factless, meritless, mindless arguement.

I love it when liberals make my points for me.

Those folks were responsible. They did not trample anyones rights. There will never be such an amendment, unless it's the liberals deciding that genocide is ok against conservatives. You see, throughout history, it's always the progressives in society who choose to try to make society better through nefarious, and often genocidal, means.

Comment posted August 21, 2009 @ 2:59 am

A right is a right.

By your reasoning, it might be illegal or un-American for me to exercise my free speech in front of the president… oh, wait, you must already think it is. You call the folks at the town halls “un-american,” and “nazis,” and “hate mongers.” Your “dear leader” stuffs his town halls with Soro's funded boot-lickers, liars, and union leaders to make sure that the press can show how harmonizing he is, and to make sure that he doesn't get any tough questions that his teleprompter can't answer.

Comment posted August 21, 2009 @ 3:03 am

No, Bush wouldn't have, but Clinton would have.

Like Ruby Ridge… coerce an individual (proven) into nothing more than violating a tax law (proven), then move in and murder his wife and son. No, the trigger man wasn't nailed, but Weaver absolutely won the lawsuit for their WRONGFUL deaths.

Facts, not fiction.

Comment posted August 21, 2009 @ 3:09 am

Oops, sorry, Weaver didn't “win,” they settled with hime, and gave him 3.1 million for killing his wife and 14 year old son.

Oh, his wife was carrying their infant child at the time the SNIPER shot her dead.

Now that was libral justice!

Comment posted August 21, 2009 @ 1:15 pm

inalienable… not so much. unalienable is correct

constitution… not so much.

Declaration of Independence:… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Comment posted August 21, 2009 @ 1:15 pm

inalienable… not so much. unalienable is correct

constitution… not so much.

Declaration of Independence:… endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Comment posted August 21, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

No, someone who is going to shoot someone else, like in VA Tech or Luby's or other places, hide the weapon until ready to use it.

Since legal concealed carry holders are about the smallest statistical crime population, that leaves, wow, BAD PEOPLE hiding their weapons.

Bad people get and carry guns illegally. Good people get and carry guns legally.

i just don't see what that's so confusing for liberals, unless they somehow think that every good person has a bad person in them… in which case, they must be speaking from experience, and maybe we should ban liberals from having guns.

leaves mine at home
Comment posted September 1, 2009 @ 8:01 am

One question. How do we tell the good law abidding gun toters from the crazy want to shoot the president gun toters?

Comment posted September 1, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

Think about your question for a second and then apply the same question (which I interpret to be a rhetorical question and therefore evidential of a form of logic) to other areas of life. How do we know who's going to be a drunk driver? How do we know which cop is going to be corrupt? How do we know which law enforcement officer isn't going to turn on his country and try to shoot the president. How do we know which pharmacist is going to give someone the wrong drugs? etc etc.

I interpret your question to mean that if it is indiscernible who may or may not be a criminal, therefore no one should carry a gun in the immediate vicinity of a building in which is the president.

Well, extrapolating your logice then since we don't know what we don't know about anything, we should ban cars from being driven to these events because how do we know someone won't use their car as a weapon and try to run the president over?

Extrapolate your logic and think about the impact on freedom and the presumption of innocence. Do you restrict rights of everyone because one or two people might or might not be a criminal. If you do that, you have to do it consistently and it would plunge our country into an abysmal place to live without any rights, just because someone might be a criminal.

Comment posted September 1, 2009 @ 1:01 pm

That's awesome.

Comment posted November 11, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

Crybaby liberals. Grow up.

Comment posted November 11, 2009 @ 8:22 pm

Crybaby liberals. Grow up.

Comment posted April 7, 2010 @ 12:36 am

Shut up…

Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 5:23 pm

The last paragraph of this is the best analogy I've ever heard. With your permission I'd like to use it in everyday life from now on. Semper-fi.

Comment posted November 9, 2010 @ 5:48 pm

Please feel free, glad it resonated with you!

This We'll Defend! (gee, never did sound as cool as the Corps ;-)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.