Guns At Obama Rally!

Originally posted by Janitor From Mars
I believe that people have a right to not worry about whether or not the person next to them is carrying a gun. What if that person is a nutcase? What if they go crazy and shoot up people?

Granted, this is rare but it has happened before.

You know what isnt rare and happens all the time? Armed people not being nutcases or going crazy.

I think I have a right to not be subjected to the tyrannical whims of the paranoid soccer moms among us who seem incapable of grasping reality.

I understand but just keep your damn guns away from me.

reply to post by Janitor From Mars


If they bother you soooo badly, stay at home and never leave the house.


Do you piss yourself every time you see an armed LE official?? Probably not, because you have been conditioned to think that they are only there to protect you, and that them having guns is perfectly ok.

If you don't like armed citizens, then move to the UK or Australia where only the criminals are armed.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by Paroxysm]

Originally posted by Janitor From Mars
reply to post by pavil

 

Yes, but a PUBLIC RALLY with other people around?

I believe that people have a right to not worry about whether or not the person next to them is carrying a gun.

Honestly you DON'T have that right. The person sitting next to you at a restaurant COULD have a totally legal CWP and you wouldn't even know it. There are places where you can't carry a sidearm (Courts, Airports, ect) but for the most part the person next to you COULD have a sidearm with them and do so legally and there would be nothing you could do about it. Something to think about..........

It sounds like people in NH have brought their sidearms with them to the State Seat of Government, they are used to that sort of thing I guess. Like I said, I'm not from there.

reply to post by Paroxysm


Why don't you try to be more constructive than this?

I'm not moving anywhere. This is MY country too.

reply to post by pavil


The best part is in those "gun-free" areas like airports and courts the people with guns are going to be criminals up to no good.

The notion that a "gun-free" zone is free of criminals with guns is laughable.

Janitor could decide to spend all of his time at the airport believing himself to be free of any armed individuals when the only armed individuals in that airport are going to be up to no good. Law enforcement excluded of course. I'm sure they'll be all to eager to come running to his aid after he's already on the ground dying.

I thought the guy handled himself quite well. He didn't come off as a nutcase like Matthews was trying to portray.

Bringing up the birthers, come on, he was grasping at straws.

reply to post by Janitor From Mars


Of course it's your country too. I find it hard to believe that you can even say something like this:
"just keep your damn guns away from me."


How does my right and choice to arm myself affect you in any way what-so-ever?

If my firearm is secured in a holster on my hip, it should have no affect on you what-so-ever, unless you are to physically attack me.

If it does bother you, then you seriously should just be silent (or leave, as suggested in my previous post), because I am just exercising one of my many constitutional rights.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


It's clear that we're not going to agree on anything.

But please, lay off the scenario #.

Full disclosure - I am anti-gun. I think the 2nd Amendment is a relic from a different age and completely futile in our present world. If your government wants to crack down on you, your little firearm will not protect you. The material odds are so stacked against you that you would stand no chance. The best you could do is go down firing. And while that may appeal to some sort of romanticized cowboy ideal, in reality you will just end up dead, with the only consolation being that perhaps you will have taken someone else's life in the process. Is that something of which to be proud?





I have for many years followed the Brits and their gun rights issues. I was stationed over their, late 64 to mid 67, saw them up close. They once had a very low crime rate. They have worked very hard to increase their crime rate such that they are heads and shoulders above us. How did they do that:

Ban all guns,

Ban all knives

Make it illegal to harm a criminal that attacks you or breaks into your house.

They bring new meaning to clueless. Their break in rate while someone is at home was 69% back in the late 90's, ours was 10%. I don't know what it is today, but I would expect much higher.

Their violent crime rate is off the chart.

Purpose of this, an example of why we don't have the problems that they have with criminals, our Second Amendment solves those problems.

As to making nice with the guy that wants to murder and butcher you and your family, all that does is encourage the low life's, they see and easy target and will take you down and do as they please. You can reason till the cows come home, they will find it pretty funny.

Ole Sarge

reply to post by CrowServo


In your last paragraph you suggest a pacifistic approach to dealing with difference such as crime, armed thugs and such.

Chamberlain of GB, WWII period, negotiated with hitler, got him to sign a piece of paper saying they would be best buds. He only gave away two or three countries that were not his to give, but he negotiated peace in our time, or so he said.

Gee, wonder why hitler then turned around and attacked him? So much for pieces of paper and the idea of negotiating from a position of weakness.

The only time I have seen anything accomplished by two sides signing a piece of paper was after WWII, and we spoke from strength and we made very sure that the agreements stuck, we stood their with weapons drawn so to speak and dared them to break it. All the other paper signings were a joke and not adhered to.

Signing pieces of paper are for the weak, both of body and mind. If one lacks the will or interest to enforce this piece of paper signing business, then just don't go there.

By the way, all my vehicles are armed and so am I. It is the law, the Second Amendment says so.

I believe one article mentioned that he had his gun in his vehicle, so? Big deal, if this upsets one, don't cross the Mason Dixon line, stay up north.

Ole Sarge

Originally posted by Janitor From Mars
reply to post by pavil

 

How constructive do you expect people to be?

There is nothing responsible about bringing firearms to a public rally. I don't care how pissed off people are.

I'm not against the second amendment but I would prefer that people keep their guns at home.

What purpose would leaving our guns at home accomplish? Even if it was a law that one do so, criminals would not do it, they by definition, don't obey the law, so showing up with a gun would be normal for them while the anti-gun crowd would be trying to make everyone either turn their guns in or leave them at home.

I and my vehicles don't carry because we are pissed off, we just hate the idea of dealing with a dirt bag and not having a suitable answer for his issues. Shucks, I even avoid them if I have the opportunity.

I must love run on sentences, I do so many.

Ole sarge

Originally posted by CrowServo

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
"--But if some crackhead decides to rob me, burgularize my home, rape my wife or daughter .. I bet cha my little firearm will protect me and my family a lot better than the government.

How much more emboldened would said crackhead be if he knew with certainty there would not be any such resistance?--"

That hypothetical crackhead might just as easily be armed himself and get the drop on you.

Yeah..exactly. I was actually thinking you understood that.

If somebody wants something you have, they can take it, whether or not you resist.

Wow.. I find it hard to believe there are people who really feel this helpless.

It is much safer to not draw in those situations in the first place. I postulate that if you own a gun, you're more likely to create a situation in which to use it, albeit unconsciously.

Postulation FAIL. I have had guns my entire adult life. On my 21st birthday I bought a Berreta 92 FS.. I have owned guns of all varieties for over 20 years.. Not one situation "created"..AT ALL.

I have only drawn one time, AND it was because some guy decided to break into my house while I was in bed. He saw the gun and heard me demand his purpose..and he ran away. No shots fired, one potential bad altercation averted.

Perhaps you could "postulate" how many times a gun has been used responsibly in a situation like the one described above. How much crime as been silently thwarted due to the mere presence of this tool.

How is my viewpoint limited when I stated that you would have no chance against the forces of the government should they decide to oppress you? It has what may as well be an infinite supply of the most powerful weapons on the planet.

Ya know..I REALLY don't want to go there. But I will say this.. HYPOTHETICALLY.. So we won the Iraq war in just a few weeks.. right? Then it was over.. after all, the Iraqi military was wiped out right? The last 5 years have just been ..what exactly? Now multiply that by 1000. Realize the visual pictures of American children hurt by missles, bombs, gunfire.

How do you think that would go over.

like I said... I really don't want to go there. I doubt the fine men in the armed forces would either.



[edit on 12-8-2009 by Taxi-Driver]

I don't get why people would see someone open carrying a gun as a threat. I would only be a little suspicious if he had it concealed. But OK if you're really THAT paranoid of guns.

The guy did a great job at putting down what Chris was trying to paint him as.

[edit on 8/12/09 by MoothyKnight]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by CrowServo

 

If you have a degree in history, then I would think you would be far more reluctant to hand over your right to self-defense to the government.

Just ask the Jews
or Ukrainians
or Pols
or Chinese
etc.. etc.. etc..

As to your comment about a armed citizens not being able to revolt against the government. First off there are over 65 million armed citizens in this country, the actual combat troops of the US military total less than a few hundred thousand, excluding cooks, supply, navy, airfarce, ect.. ect..

Should the people revolt, they would kick the military's proverbial azz. BUT - as in any popular uprising, it is safe to assume that the military would be divided as well. And in this case, since most of our military voted for Ron Paul, I think we know which side they would be on.

So this argument that guns could not protect us from the US military if they were to enact tyranny against the people is a total farce. No military can stand up to 65 million angry civilians. In fact I would go so far as to say we could completely disband the military and never be invaded - ever. No country would be stupid enough to try it.

Could you imagine the Chinese Red Army rolling through downtown Compton? HAHAHAHH the gangs would kill half of them before they got into Inglewood.




[edit on 12-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

Thank you for stating what I was thinking as I was reading through this thread. And to all those who oppose armed citizens, you had in your guns first.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by bkcrt]

Just saw Rachel Maddow comparing this guy's sign with the Jefferson quote to McVeigh's mugshot shirt.

For those that don't Know, the Jefferson quote is " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

It was on the back of Mcveigh's shirt when he was arrested, the front had a picture of Lincoln and said "Sic Semper Tyrannis"(thus always to tyrants).

You know, Rachel, I don't think anyone got the inference that a citizen exercising his constitutional rights must be a psycho madman about to Kill everyone within range of his "scary gun"!

I guess MSNBC scooped the secret service, if they had known of this dangerous dude there would have been a dramatic takedown

Even after Matthews got shut down by this guy it looks like MSNBC is gonna play their fear-fest to the hilt.



[edit on 12-8-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

I'm trying to figure out where all of you clowns got the idea that the US military is a bunch of autonamous killers that can jsud be told where to go and who to kill.

In my opinion this guy was very smart in what he did. I'll lay odds that he has a CWP, but, he chose to open carry. He put his weapon out on display. This way security knew that he was armed and thus reduced the risk of a misunderstanding.

Then his interview with Chris Matthews was just plain brilliant. I believe the term is POWNED.

reply to post by CrowServo


Well I for one am very Pro-gun and I agree with you.. you should never be allowed to bring a gun, loaded or not, to a presidential rally....

However I also disagree with you...

My "small arms" may not beat off a government attack on civilians... my .50 cal or an AR15 however would do the trick.

And don't worry. When TSHTF and you don't have a gun, don't want to even look at one.. folks like me with our guns will still fight for you and your freedoms, whether you utilized them or not.

Was this an official political rally? I only ask because down here in Texas you can't carry a gun into a "political rally", even if you have a CCW. Or so I have read...

If NH has more lax gun laws than we do down here then I must commend them for that.

Originally posted by XTexan
Was this an official political rally? I only ask because down here in Texas you can't carry a gun into a "political rally", even if you have a CCW. Or so I have read...

If NH has more lax gun laws than we do down here then I must commend them for that.

He was standing on private property outside with the protesters.

That is perfectly legal.