Former agent: Gun-toters creating 'atmosphere of danger' for Obama

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Former agent: Gun-toters creating 'atmosphere of danger' for Obama


rawstory.com

As many as 12 people openly carrying guns showed up at President Barack Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Phoenix, Arizona, on Monday, adding to concerns about the recent trend of private citizens bringing weapons to presidential appearances.

Those people are “creating an atmosphere that could be dangerous to the president,” a former Secret Service agent told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Monday night.

Joseph Petro, author of Standing Next to History, a memoir of life in the Secret Service, told viewers of The Rachel Maddow Show that these types of incidents we
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
What exactly is the message the people carrying guns to a political rally actually want to send? I know it is lawful and perhaps the "atmosphere of danger" is precisely what the people that are displaying their firearms want to project.

I think it's a message of intimidation. "Don't mess with the 2nd amendment or we will use force"

I also think eventually some nut will pull out his piece and start something and it will escalate until the Secret Service is forced to act.

I am a collector of firearms and I think it is just asking for trouble to carry one where there are some very serious dudes around like the Secret Service. Lawful or not.

If there is an event of gunplay; here's a hint....Remember what happened after Reagan was shot.



rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 18-8-2009 by whaaa]

[edit on 18-8-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

What exactly is the message the people carrying guns to a political rally actually want to send? I know it is lawful.


Well obviously they want to protect themselves in case socialism pounces.


Argh, like you said, this nonsense is going to end with someone getting hurt ...

I do believe the folks manipulating them into this frenzy want exactly that.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   


I also think eventually some nut will pull out his piece and start something and it will escalate until the Secret Service is forced to act.

I am a collector of firearms and I think it is just asking for trouble to carry one where there are some very serious dudes around like the Secret Service. Lawful or not.

If there is an event of gunplay; here's a hint....Remember what happened after Reagan was shot.


I think this is the whole point. No one in their right mind would knowingly carry an assault rifle to anywhere within a few thousand feet of the President of the United States.

I was very surprised that people were not arrested, 2nd Amendment or not.

My gut feeling is that these are staged events, by agents of the SS. The end goal is to nullify the 2nd Amendment by allowing the posturing to escalate until it has turned violent. You said it all, Whaa...You're a COLLECTOR...so you have a few guns....you cherish your rights under the 2nd amendment, but even YOU wouldn't do what is plastered all over the media right now....

Only a complete idiot or a plant would have such disregard for the rest of the gun owners in America.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 





Only a complete idiot or a plant would have such disregard for the rest of the gun owners in America.



Well, this is a conspiracy site and a plant, agent provocateurs have been used in the past to turn a peaceful demonstration into a riot, but my hunch is that it there are plenty of complete idiots to bring down something akin to the Brady bill.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
idk what to think all u guys make good points...im excited ppl are exercising there rights,but i can see how this could be tooken advantaged of if some guy was really planing sum kind of attack..i kno those ppl with the guns were being watched at all times....they say its intimidation"dont mess with the 2nd amendment"..but the gov.intimidate ppl everyday..tasering grandmas and kids and such lol ppl are tired of the bull



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
This could give the ptb a reason to introduce new fire arm regulations, under the pretense of protecting the potus. Seriously who lugs around a ar-15 at a political gathering? The whole thing smells of a set up! Otherwise I think the ss would have removed the man. Maybe I buy too much into conspiracies


[edit on 18-8-2009 by hangedman13]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
IMO I think more people should carry at these events as it will be a major deterrent against any ACORN, SEIU , Labor Unions, etc from trying to start fights and attack others.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

I think it's a message of intimidation. "Don't mess with the 2nd amendment or we will use force"


And that's PRECISELY the point of the second amendment. It's there for the people to protect the freedoms brought in by the amendments INCLUDING itself.

I don't see the problem.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Credge

I don't see the problem.


Neither do I ...

But then again I'm not the one carrying a big mac in the tiger cage.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Oh, well, here it is. I knew it was coming. "Guns are bad. Now they are putting the President in danger. That is why me must ban them all and pronounce the 2nd Amendment a piece of history."

I agree that it probably isn't the best idea to bring guns around near the president. Especially at a political rally, with people on both sides. That is an environment with heated arguments and flaring tempers.

At the same time, nothing has happened so far, so they should stop making a big deal out of it. The media is just contributing attention to it. It's just gonna give more people ideas. Until something bad happens, and then all our rights go bye-bye.

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment and strongly support Americans having guns. I just hope people are responsible about it, because I will not stand to see my rights go because of somebody else...



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


I think it is only out of place. Come on, these protests were about health care, this has nothing to do with guns (Unless its for healthcare for someone who's been shot).

The one man in New Hampshire was different, he said he carried his gun everywhere. But the guys in AZ? They are out of place. Glad they exercise their rights, but in the occasion which they chose is simply a non sequitur.

People open carrying in a protest or rally should have something to do with guns.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Talk with armed protester was staged, interviewer says


(CNN) — He was to demonstrating his right to bear arms — and he wanted you to know it.

Video of the unidentified man toting an assault rifle outside President Barack Obama’s speech to veterans Monday was aired all over the country, causing a buzz about weapons popping up — legally — around recent presidential events.

The protester, who refused to give his name, was interviewed by a man carrying a microphone and said, “I am almost always armed.” Turns out, the interview — done by Libertarian radio talk show host Ernest Hancock — was staged.

“Absolutely,” Hancock told CNN’s Rick Sanchez Tuesday. “You guys are so easy. What we wanted to do was make sure that people around the country knew that law enforcement in Phoenix, Arizona, protects our rights.”

The Phoenix-based host of “Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock” identified the bespectacled man with the AR-15 assault rifle as “Chris,” saying he’s known him for two years as part of a younger generation of Libertarians. “We are up against a tyrannical government that will rob the next generation as long as they can get away with it,” Hancock said.

The protester was among a dozen other demonstrators carrying unconcealed guns outside the Obama event. Hancock, who said he was packing a 9-millimeter Beretta pistol, added that Phoenix police had known about the group’s intent to protest while carrying guns. “They are the ones standing a few feet away from us” at Monday’s protest, Hancock said. “Oftentimes, the citizenry are better armed that law enforcement — they need us on their side.”

Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons. So despite the man’s proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made, according to Phoenix police.


Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said, “Of course not.”

The individuals could never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, Donovan said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president, and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
They are making a statement, not sure if the statement is germane to current issues. They have the right to do this, I won't argue that. Possibly a setup? We'll find out soon enough probably.

The SS sets up so many levels of protection I seriously doubt the prez is in any real danger from one of these peeps. I participated in a Civil War reenactment last year where Dick Cheney gave a speech, there were thousands of people there and it was crawling with SS. We (2 persons) did not know he was there already, and rode up some railroad tracks into the back gate carrying a full loadout (4 revolvers each and a carbine). Despite sneaking in the back way(inadvertantly) and avoiding main checkpoints, we never got within 500 yards of Cheney. The SS guy spotted our weapons from 100 yards away and a 8 man detail intercepted us on golf carts. It was interesting. We had to ride back to camp and get rid of the weapons, but they were pretty professional about it. As long as we weren't reaching, they weren't reaching.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by hotrodturbo7]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


Evidently you have not been in Arizona very much. That is not out of place there one bit. It is the norm actually.

Zindo



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Dont get me wrong I think people should be allowed to own guns. I grew up around guns(we hunted) and I still have a few. I use them very rarely for hunting anymore and usually only use them with my family for target shooting.

With great power there is great responsibility. And I think, like with freedom of speech, there are/should be limits to these rights. Just like you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, I think it is ridiculous to carry a gun in public, especially to a public gathering. There are so many of these gun owner who think they are Rambo or something, or that if something goes down, there fat a$$ is going to turn into Jason Borne and start saving lives. More likely they will take out innocent people in their attempt to be the hero.

Again, I am a gun owner and have no problem with people using guns for hunting and target shooting. But I also think that gun crime should be prosecuted severely. And there should be tons of regulation and a much stricter policy for obtaining guns, especially handguns, which are designed for target shooting and killing people. The hunting applications for a hand gun are almost non-existent.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


My stepdad hunted with handguns and bow and arrow most of his life, he never touched a rifle after leaving the military. Handgun hunting is an excellent challenge, you have to be a much better woodsman, like with the bow. The equipment will not cover your shortcomings.

He also concealed carried every day legally, after having his spine and leg broken by some thugs.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LetTheTruthBeTold

At the same time, nothing has happened so far, so they should stop making a big deal out of it. The media is just contributing attention to it. It's just gonna give more people ideas. Until something bad happens, and then all our rights go bye-bye.



What do you expect the media to do. It's the gun owners that are making a spectacle out of the events.

It seems to me that to not report people with guns at a political function would be irresponsible.

You can't have it both ways....show up with a gun and say "no big deal"

This type of dumbass behavior is going to hurt all responsible gun owners and collectors. Mark my words. Then who will be to blame?

The people carrying are going to have to take responsiblity for their actions and the actions of the nut bar that might show up with them.

[edit on 18-8-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I don't have a problem with folks having guns, much less carrying them.

The concern I have is that some idiot will start shooting, provoking more gunfire and so on. Panicked people are stupid people, they won't hit the dirt and stay there, they will run and get shot / hurt or possibly hurt others.

Frankly I think the people carrying guns to politically charged events are being less than rational. In that it just takes one screw up (deliberate or not), and then everyone's 2nd Amendment rights will go in the crapper.

You like guns fine, great, fantastic. I like you to be able to have them, but I would also like for you to be sensible and not take them into such risky environs. Where, should the unfortunate happen, you would place others at risk simply by standing there and having a visible weapon.

Yes you have the right to bear arms, it still does not give you the right to endanger others.

Which is I how I view folks carrying to Town Halls, Political Rallies and places where our Government officials will be at. Endangering others. (Not to mention yourself.)

Don't nominate yourself for a Darwin Award by carrying weapons to these events.

Seriously.

M.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotrodturbo7
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 


My stepdad hunted with handguns and bow and arrow most of his life, he never touched a rifle after leaving the military. Handgun hunting is an excellent challenge, you have to be a much better woodsman, like with the bow. The equipment will not cover your shortcomings.

He also concealed carried every day legally, after having his spine and leg broken by some thugs.


I am aware of the uses and I'm not saying that no one should be able to get a handgun but i think the process should be very regulated.

I am confused as to why they dont make that bullet fingerprinting technology a requirement of gun manufactures. That way if a gun was involved in a crime you can trace it back to the exact gun that fired it according to the database of bullet markings.





top topics
 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join