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

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Socialism pounces? Lame, very lame excuse to bring guns to a rally.

Some people REALLY want the martial law, REX-84 and other stuff to happen because they're stupid enough to BRING GUNS TO A PRESIDENTIAL RALLY!

Dwelling on negative events only ensures that those events come true!

Drop out of the matrix and drop out of the game!




posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Here is what is going to happen...........

option number 1

More and more people will start carrying to these events. Eventually there will be many, so many that you will likely see 1 out of 10 people in the crowd armed.

The pres will be shot or at least shot at, but there will be so many people with guns, the whole scene will be mass confusion and the real shooter (likely an insider/cia type) will get away and some innocent patsy will be taken down for it. This will cause rioting and mass hysteria and all hell breaks loose across the nation.

option number 2

More and more people will start carrying to these events. Eventually there will be many, so many that you will likely see 1 out of 10 people in the crowd armed.

Tension will arise and some nervous nelly(perhaps a plant) will pull the trigger and all hell will break loose. The result................. new gun laws, or should I say no more guns.


Choose your option.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by KSPigpen
 


I am going to go your direction on this one. I am with several militias and tea parties, 912. There is no way we would show up with arms unless we felt we are going to use them. You would know that ahead of time, because we would not be in the crowd. We would be formed up and marching.
Unless or until at this rate, that happens, I would say it's the damn Govt. pulling a bunch of crap. They have already planted, bullied, etc with all the normal people that are mad at the Govt.
They will do anything to self preserve and maintain that power that tastes so good to them.



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Wow. Folks afraid of folks who are lawfully armed.

Regulated? They WERE regulated with laws, and they were abiding by the laws. Get over it.

I recall a small group on the Lexington green, who were armed, and some folks came along and decided they shouldn't be there - armed.

Now who started that fight?

We damn sure know how it ended though, don't we?



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
And Maddow is such a shill, she keeps trying to make the connection between McVeigh and the guy in NH with the Jefferson quote sign.

I hear Hinckley wore black slacks, if you see a guy in black slacks RUN LIKE HELL...



posted on Aug, 18 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
These people did nothing illegal, but they get vilified by a female reporter who looks like a man. It's nice to see the cops aren't the only ones who make innocent people feel like criminals.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Really, why bring guns?

Even if the people who do own them and do bring them are peaceful, there's a chance there's a loon there that'll grab the gun and start shooting.

And I'm not only worried about the President.

I'm worried about the thousands of people that come to these things.

I'm fine with the Second Amendment, but don't you think we should just err on the side of caution so that a catastrophe doesn't occur?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SphinxMontreal
 


It's not the point of whether it's illegal or not. It's the very idiocy of bringing guns to a Presidential rally.

What's wrong with you people? Don't you have an ounce of logic left in your heads?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 




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.


I completely agree with you. If the rifling of a fired bullet was collected for every gun sold, and put into a huge forensics database, then gun crimes would definitely drop off a good percent. I also think they should tighten up regulation/registration of firearms, and include much harsher penalties for all gun crimes.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment and fully support it. That is why there should be distinctions made which would allow citizens to legally and rightfully own firearms while making it much harder and tougher on any criminals or those who use guns for crimes. What I mean is something like the National Firearms Act of 1934. Civilians who wish to purchase any Class III Firearms (such as machine guns, silencers, etc) need to submit a full set of fingerprints to the FBI, along with a recent photo, a $200 tax, signature from police chief/sheriff, etc. Funny thing, since this law was passed in 1934, there have been only 2 homicides to ever take place with a legally owned automatic weapon, out of over 240,000 that are registered. Oh, and the best part? The one confirmed homicide with a registered automatic weapon was by a POLICE OFFICER who murdered a civilian.



In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman.



The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio.


Perhaps if there were more regulations like this (minus the tax) involved in gun ownership and registration, but still allowing for ownership of firearms, then crimes would dramatically drop. I think this is a pretty good example of what I mean. This way our 2nd Amendment rights will (or should, but you never know with the people running America today) still be respected, and crime rates will be cut.

But, the US government and politicians have the intelligence, logic, and reasoning skills equivalent to that a squirrel with Down syndrome, so who knows.

They would never end up making a law like this that actually works. Hell, they can't even make one that doesn't make things worse.

Oh, and by the way, they passed another law in 1986 banning the sale of any newly manufactured automatic weapons. So, any legally-owned machine gun possible for a civilian must have been made before May of 1986. This regulation was passed 2 years before the first homicide with a legally-owned automatic weapon ever took place, which didn't occur until 1988. There was a perfect (so far, at the time) system in place, where NOT ONE crime was committed in the entire 42 years of the National Firearms Act. I can see there were a bunch of everyday Albert Einsteins in office then...





posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Well Maaaaaaybe Barack needs to get his Kiester back to the White House and do some work

He is after all the President not Miss America

I'm ALLOT less concerned about an American poping a cap in him... then I am one of the many people we pissed of world wide doing it in order to create chaos

And what the heck is this guy doing? he's not a president he's a traveling salesman, pitching his bill of goods going to town meetings and rallies...

He's the leader of the "Free world" or what's left of it...

People do want to kill him and he's running around kissing babies and making speeches like it's an election year...

HE'S THE PRESIDENT SOMEONE SHOULD LET HIM KNOW THAT

I mean what? They want him to get shot? Why is the President always running around being a spokesperson...

It's a threat? That he is out in public all the time instead of being the President safely guarding the nation?

and i'm not picking on poor Obama...

GW was reading children fricken stories during 9-11 okay...

Enough already.... It's not safe nor the Presidents JOB to be out and about being a social activist...

Get back to work Ya Bum... you promised change, start with your daily schedule... your The PRESIDENT MR OBAMA... get safely back to the white house and do your god damned job where you can't be hurt...



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by LetTheTruthBeTold
 


I can take my rifle, which say has been "imprinted" in the barrel, fire a few abrasive rounds through it, and now it's been altered and doesn't match whatever is on the card.

I can change barrels.

I can replace my firing pin and polish my bolt face and ejector claw. Now, neither the bullets, the casings where they were grabbed by the ejector, where the firing pin hit, or even the bolt face which may have identifying marks, will match that determined and diligently imprinted by the manufacturer.

These ideas are from folks who don't have any working knowledge of firearms, how they work, how easy it is to alter or change critical parts, and in general, I just laugh at such suggestions.

Oh. That serializing bullets?

I reload my own from a significant stock.

If you think Heroine is difficult to control - try regulating bullets or components.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by LetTheTruthBeTold
 


I can take my rifle, which say has been "imprinted" in the barrel, fire a few abrasive rounds through it, and now it's been altered and doesn't match whatever is on the card.

I can change barrels.

I can replace my firing pin and polish my bolt face and ejector claw. Now, neither the bullets, the casings where they were grabbed by the ejector, where the firing pin hit, or even the bolt face which may have identifying marks, will match that determined and diligently imprinted by the manufacturer.

These ideas are from folks who don't have any working knowledge of firearms, how they work, how easy it is to alter or change critical parts, and in general, I just laugh at such suggestions.

Oh. That serializing bullets?

I reload my own from a significant stock.

If you think Heroine is difficult to control - try regulating bullets or components.




You are saying that because someone could alter a gun to bypass this kind of identification, its pointless to have it.

And by this logic we should get rid of any regulation or laws that can be subverted, forged or altered. Why have drivers licenses? They can be forged so no point in having them.

Throw every law out if it can be subverted.

No law or regulation is perfect. Bullet imprinting is a relatively cheap way to help keep track of what weapons are committing crimes. One deterrent to what you are suggesting is to create stiff penalties for anyone caught with an altered weapon.

Responsible gun owners should be for a law of this sort. It targets only those who use guns for illegal purposes. Yes some will alter their guns but most wont because of the penalties for altering.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I agree, there are many ways to get around any databases of "bullet fingerprints." I've been around firearms since my early teens and have taken courses (safety, how they work, etc.), was part of the Junior NRA program, participated in some NRA tournaments, and go to the shooting range when I get a chance (I'm in college now, so I don't really have time for anything like this except the summer). Admittedly, I'm no expert, but I do have a decent amount of knowledge of guns and their working parts, and on how they can be altered.

But, many people don't have such knowledge. I know a good amount of people who own guns without such knowledge. I'm not saying that they aren't aware of what a gun can do, because they certainly are, and they know all laws and proper safety practices. But, that doesn't mean they are able to take the weapon apart and put a new barrel or something in it, nor would they try. They only know how to take it apart enough to clean it after firing, and put it right back together again, like in the manual. Many people own sports cars, but not all of them are able to do an engine swap, mess with the ECU, or put in reforged pistons.

Most people wouldn't buy a new barrel or a new firing pin so that they could commit a crime and get away with it. So, if they were pissed by something and felt the need to shoot somebody, they'd think twice knowing that their bullet markings were on record for the police to access. This wouldn't really apply to anybody who plans on carrying out an explicitly planned pre-meditated murder, but it might deter some crimes of passion (that aren't too passionate). I know this represents a small percent of any legal gun owners who would end up committing a crime, which is a small number itself, but it would still probably have some type of effect on gun crime.
On second thought, people could also buy replacement parts or better ones without doing it to change the signature/rifling, and without even realizing it.

Yes, I understand that there are many holes in what I said earlier, but I wasn't proposing a fool-proof bill for Congress sign off on. I was just suggesting a different approach to the situation. I guess I could have done better. My point was that instead of banning firearms outright, they should just regulate them better in a way to prevent crime. Example being the point about automatic weapons (pre-1986 legislation). They were heavily regulated, but legal for law-abiding citizens to own if they went through all the procedures necessary and passed a background test. Going 44 years before having a homicide isn't too shabby. Of course, now there is such a limited number of them that prices have skyrocketed (supply and demand at its finest - or worst, depends on which way you look at it
) so most citizens simply can't afford them anyways. And, 25 states pushed for further regulations on them, so they are even harder to get. I know that any Class III Firearm is illegal in my state
. Not that I could even afford one anyways...

Like I said before, I didn't really think about what I was proposing too thoroughly. I kinda got an idea and then ran with it without looking where my feet were landing. I'm kinda tired and not really thinking straight at the moment. My main point, though, was lawmakers should look at it from more of a standpoint like that, instead of saying "Guns are bad. We need to ban them all." One thing that I definitely think, though, is that any gun crime, be it murder, assault, robbery, or shooting at someone and missing, should have the toughest penalties possible. Citizens who don't commit crimes won't worry, and some criminals (not all, hardened criminals/mafia/VT style won't care) would think twice before doing anything stupid.

[Edit] Oops, forgot source in previous post...
Guncite

[edit on 19-8-2009 by LetTheTruthBeTold]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Mak Manto
 


There's also a chance that a loon will set a nuke off, a plane will crash, or someone will drive a car through a crowded area going 70MPH.

Just because these things can happen doesn't mean they will or that you should worry about them.

It's far, far worse to have a concealed weapon near the president than one out in the open. That is to say, you wouldn't be allowed near the president if you have a weapon being carried but you most certainly might if it's concealed.

The entire argument is bogus anyway. You have two sides. People suggesting that it's the persons right to do so and the other suggesting that it isn't morally acceptable. K. Where's the argument?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Credge
 


Agreed. After 9/11 people should have been banned from flying planes and there has been more than enough car acidents to justify banning cars. How many more people have to die before we do the right thing and ban everything that could endanger someone? Electricity is another one


[edit on 19-8-2009 by Jacob08]



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Quote by 'LetTheTruthbeTold'

But, many people do not have such knowledge. I know a good amount of people who own firearms without such knowledge. I'm not saying that they aren't aware of what a gun can do, because they certainly are, and they know all laws and proper safety practices. But, that doesn't mean they are able to take the weapon apart and put a new barrel or something in it, nor would they try. They only know how to take it apart enough to clean it after firing, and then put it right back together again, just like in the manual. A lot of people own sports cars, but not all of them are able to perform an engine swap, mess with the ECU, or put in reforged pistons.


Any fool can find that information online. It's not hard to get nearly any information on how to do anything online. What imprinting is all about is 'PRICING' ammo and gun rights out of existence. Ever since Daniel Patric Moynahan was in the Mass. House the Anti's have either tried to tax us or regulate us with ammo restrictions because they knew that it was the only way to back door gun possession without a major upheaval. That's exactly what happened after the original AWB. The Democrats lost. This will happen again when and if they pass this unusable and unconstitutional law!

Zindo



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Credge
 

The argument is that it's dangerous. Just bringing guns to a town hall meeting just to say "Hey, it's our second amendment right! We're allowed to have guns outside!" might be a bit negligent.

No one's stopping people, and President Obama is certainly not going to stop you. He has said he supports individual gun rights.

Really, though, we should remain careful here.

Is it so hard to ask to not bring guns to a meeting?



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
Regulated? They WERE regulated with laws, and they were abiding by the laws. Get over it.


Get over what? If I'm not mistaken, the Constitution stipulates a "well regulated militia". I never read about sport and collectable firearms there. As I said in a different thread, you can tattoo some weird symbols on your forehead and not break a single law, and you'd still be a nut.

Face it -- the Secret Service was watching the situation, and every self-righteous gun enthusiast with their thinly veiled threat was a distraction in the Secret Service to confront potential (and maybe more real) perpetrators. So basically there people were saboteurs against the US of A, enough said.



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
Wow. Folks afraid of folks who are lawfully armed.



Don't carry a firearm in public unless you plan on using it, these people are wimps and wanna be cowboys. Bringing a firearm to a public event is like bringing your wife to a strip club, you own it, she's sitting by your side, but you look like a idiot for bringing her.

It's your right, but you still look foolish



posted on Aug, 19 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Better Mouse Trap
 



The statement made by these folks with firearms is that "We will not be intimidated.You work for us. We are not your subjects and don"t forget it!"! If this bothers you so much, I wonder just what it is you truly feel about our 2nd Amendment and why it's in the Constitution? The paranoia about folks exercising their rights in the manner they please is uncalled for. It is fear of what might happen not of what is happening! I'm willing to bet that there were more SS there than needed and they had everyone in that crowd watched and it would have been the same even if no one showed up to show their right to bear arms like this man did.

Zindo





[edit on 8/19/2009 by ZindoDoone]





top topics
 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join