It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arizona State Sen. Lori Klein (R) points a loaded gun at a reporter!

page: 8
29
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Gun owners 101
1) Always consider a gun loaded until you determine otherwise
2) Never point a loaded gun at anything you don't intend to shoot




posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Ok, before I state my opinion on the Huffington Post article and the additional facts of this case as I know them, let me say this: This senator is a total moron for 1.) pulling the gun out at all, when she was not asked by the reporter, and 2.) pointing it at another human being who wasn't threatening her life, whether by accident or not. It should have never been pointed at anything but the floor.

Now what I know about this. First, do not believe for one second that the Huffington Post isn't exploiting this story for all it's worth, and sensationalizing it as much as possible. They are as left-wing a publication as you can possibly imagine, and rabidly anti-gun ownership. This story is the kind they salivate over every day.

Second, she claims that she pulled out the gun to show it and he walked in front of the laser after it was turned on. Also, I heard the actual audio from this interview this morning on the radio, and both the senator and the reporter were laughing and joking about the fact that she pointed the gun at the reporter, which COULD corroborate her side of the story. He didn't seem to feel threatened at all, which I'm guessing is why this hasn't come to light until now.

Third, this is a hispanic reporter for the Arizona Republic, which is every bit as left-wing as the Huffington Post. Most of the time when reporting on a crime being committed, if the purpertrator is hispanic his/her name is left out of the article. Of course a white person has his picture, name, and sometimes address published, so they are undeniably racist also. Don't take my word for it, check them out on the web yourself, but don't use a single article to try to prove me wrong, because they do make rare exceptions.

Again, she was a complete idiot, and apparently never took a gun safety course. She has no business carrying a weapon with her complete lack of common sense safety, which IMO is the epitome of stupid.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
At my school we actually had(still have) a firing range in the basement that I spent many hours at after each school day, the first lesson I was taught was never point the firearm in an unsafe direction.

This woman has proven that she doesn't even understand the fundamentals of owning a weapon let alone how to use and maintain one safely. I'm seriously frightened for her constituents.

To be clear - I am for open carry. However, I am also for responsible gun ownership.

People need to learn a basic respect for the weapon, which clearly she does not have as she says "oh, isn't it cute" and points a loaded gun with no safety at the chest of an unarmed reporter as a "demonstration."

I've been shooting since I was a young boy of 8, and what has kept me and others around me safe all these years is being taught to respect the weapon and it's power.

It's just like that old meme from the spiderman comics; "with great power comes great responsibility."
edit on 13-7-2011 by djzombie because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2011 by djzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
In a bizarre incident Arizona State Sen. Lori Klien (R) points a loaded .380 Ruger at a journalist!

www.huffingtonpost.com... 218652

This should not be allowed, no State legistator shall ever point a loaded gun at anyone, expecially a reporter. She deserved to be censured and stripped of her seat. This is really dispicable.
edit on 11-7-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



WTF?

I'm a gun fan. The first lesson taught to me by my father when I was about 7 was "dont point at what you dont want to destroy".

I wont even get on the thing of having a "pink pistol". Its a weapon. Its not a damn gucci bag.

This lady deserves neither her seat NOR her weapon.

.....IF everything is as reported.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Majic
 


You might be right, if this happened yesterday. Oh wait? 6 months ago???

That tells me that it (the story) wasn't a big deal. . . until it could be used as a "weapon".



Are you sure it was six months ago? Having read the excerpt you posted, it says that she carried her gun into state building two days after the Gifford shooting, so far yeah, six months ago. Then it says in a recent interview she brought out the gun and pointed it.

That suggests the reporter was asking her why she had the gun in the state building two days after the shooting and that's when she pointed it at him. The chronology of that suggests the incident is much more recent.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   

edit on 13-7-2011 by something wicked because: Covered in anothers post



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Majic
 


I agree. Simply pulling out a weapon in the manner that she did would be Brandishing a Weapon. Anyone of us would be in jail for that. How come elite do not have the same rules as us.


This is just flat out wrong. First of all, she was saying "isn't this cute" as she was pulling it out. Therefore, that tell you right there that she was simply a completely rude idiot by pointing the gun at the reporter, not a criminal. Second of all, there was no harm actually done. Therefore putting someone in jail over that would be ridiculous. You'd be surprised how some people can simply be told to never do a specific thing again, and then not do that thing again. Pointing a gun at people is one of those things that most people can probably never do again.

Most importantly, the reason you are not allowed to point a gun at a person has little to do with the chances of it actually going off. Without a finger on the trigger, THERE IS LESS THAN A ONE IN A MILLION CHANCE OF THE GUN GOING OFF. That means that the only real reason your not supposed to point a gun at people is that it is considered a threat to do that. But when you're saying "isn't this cute" its pretty clear that the person isn't going to shoot you, especially in the context of an interview. I mean if some random nut comes up to you and does that its one thing, but if a senator comes up to you during an interview its pretty obvious whats going on.

The whole "jail her" idea is ridiculously unreasonable and nonsensical. She can simply be told "hey, its considered rude and threatening to point a gun at someone, so don't do it". So there you have it. Problem solved without use of jail or other extreme measures.
edit on 13-7-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Without a finger on the trigger, THERE IS LESS THAN A ONE IN A MILLION CHANCE OF THE GUN GOING OFF.


That is not the point at all, nor is whether or not she did so in a threatening manner, as that is subject to interpretation by the person having the gun pointed at them.

Regardless of her intent, she exercised very poor judgment and a complete lack of firearm safety training, yet she is allowed to carry a concealed weapon with no safety in the capital building, and not even in a secure fashion - she keeps it in her god damned purse where anything could brush up against the trigger and easily misfire a weapon without a safety.

Do I think she needs to be jailed? No, I think that is going a little too far and that is the only point on which I agree with you. However I do think she needs to be stripped of any conceal and carry permits she has, not be allowed to apply for them again for a year or longer, and be subject to the same qualifications that civilians must go through.

Edit: After reading some more and realizing this is in arizona - which is an open carry state - which I fully support - surely there has to be some type of rules about carrying in the capital - even in an open carry state.

Even in an open carry state they don't let felons open carry, could we have a new list for people who have proven themselves careless and likely to kill someone, even if only by accident? It's a difficult thing to support open carry and then see idiots with no respect for the power they hold in their hands wave it around like it's a toy.

Question - must you still obtain a concealed carry permit in open carry states to carry a concealed weapon? I was under the impression open carry allowed the right for anyone to carry a weapon as long as it was not concealed. This question is specifically pertaining to arizona state laws, I am not familiar with them.
edit on 13-7-2011 by djzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger



The whole "jail her" idea is ridiculously unreasonable and nonsensical. She can simply be told "hey, its considered rude and threatening to point a gun at someone, so don't do it". So there you have it. Problem solved without use of jail or other extreme measures.


Anyone that can't figure out on their own that pointing a firearm at someone is rude and threatening must be severely retarded and has no business even owning a gun.

I agree that jail time shouldn't be imposed but she should at least lose her permit to carry and be charged with a "mistermeaner"


But I'm not so naive as to believe that their aren't separate, hypocritical double standards for the privileged as opposed to the rabble.

All men are created equal but some are just more equal than others.

hoklife.com...
edit on 13-7-2011 by whaaa because: oat meal



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Loaded or unloaded makes Zero difference.
The first rule in gun safety is to always assume it is loaded.
My dad taught me that.
Senator Klein did not have the advantage of being born to parents like mine.
That still would not excuse her potentially deadly faux pas.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by civilchallenger
 


Sure, just try to show your "cute gun" to next police officer you encounter.
I assure you your "rude" gesture will not go by unnoticed.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
so let me get this straight a reporter who none of you believe when it's convenient tells his slanted to sell media perspective and your all over it - lol

if he had any respect for the law in this country he should have reported the incident to the proper oversight instead of trying to smear another politician.

as for her it's a simple matter as you always point the weapon away from anything you dont intent to shoot - people make this mistake everyday and you don't hear about it because they don't pull the trigger - they shouldn't all be jailed for doing something dumb just be told not to do it again.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by djzombie

Question - must you still obtain a concealed carry permit in open carry states to carry a concealed weapon? I was under the impression open carry allowed the right for anyone to carry a weapon as long as it was not concealed. This question is specifically pertaining to arizona state laws, I am not familiar with them.
edit on 13-7-2011 by djzombie because: (no reason given)


Open Carry states, for the most part, allow you to carry a firearm in plain sight. Any concealment (under the shirt, in a purse, in a pouch) is considered concealment and hence requires a CCW. Depending on the state, just because you have a ccw in one state does not require a different state to honor that ccw. Check the local laws.

I just checked and this is what wiki says.(dont know how accurate it is)


While there is no federal law specifically addressing the issuance of concealed carry permits, 49 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from state or local law enforcement.[1] Illinois will be the only state without such a provision, once Wisconsin's new shall-issue law takes effect in October or November. The states give different terms for licenses or permits to carry a concealed firearm, such as a Concealed Handgun License/Permit (CHL/CHP), Concealed (Defensive/Deadly) Weapon Permit/License (CDWL/CWP/CWL), Concealed Carry Permit/License (CCP/CCL), License To Carry (Firearms) (LTC/LTCF), Carry of Concealed Deadly Weapon license (CCDW), Concealed Pistol License (CPL), etc. Thirteen states use a single permit to regulate the practices of both concealed and open carry of a handgun


With a little more definition here.


Unrestricted
An Unrestricted jurisdiction is one in which no permit is required to carry a concealed handgun. This sometimes called Constitutional carry,

Among U.S. states, only Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming allow residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.[14][15][16]

Alaska is both a Shall-Issue and an Unrestricted state. Alaska does not require a permit for any law-abiding individual to carry a handgun, either openly or concealed, within the state's borders. However, the state continues to issue permits to any of its residents who meet the state's issuance criteria for reciprocity reasons; Alaska residents can carry with a permit while in other states that recognize the Alaska concealed carry license.

Vermont is unique in that permits are not issued for purposes of reciprocity. Since Vermont does not issue permits, its residents are unable to legally carry concealed in other states that would normally recognize out-of-state permit holders unless they hold some other state's permit. As a way around this situation, such person who wishes to legally carry a concealed firearm in another state can apply for and receive a non-resident permit from a state that issues non-resident permits, with Florida or Utah typically being the state of choice because they hold the widest reciprocity compared with other states that issue non-resident permits. Vermont, like Arizona, also holds no restrictions as to where the permit holder can carry a weapon. Vermont, Arizona and Wyoming fall outside of the The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 limits where an unlicensed person may carry. The Gun Free Hospitality Act of 1998. The license holder may also carry weapons into churches, police stations, and banks with no repercussion.

Arizona is an unrestricted carry state. On April 16, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed legislation allowing for unrestricted carry. The law took effect 90 days after the end of the state's current legislative session, putting the effective date on July 29, 2010. Arizona followed the lead of Alaska by continuing to issue permits on a "shall-issue" basis for use by Arizona residents visiting other states.[17]

Wyoming Does not require permits for concealed carry by Wyoming residents[16][18] (in addition to unrestricted open carry, which is currently in effect). Non-Wyoming residents are still required to obtain a concealed carry permit. The state of Wyoming will continue to issue permits to residents for reciprocity reasons, much as Alaska does.

Montana currently allows unrestricted concealed carry outside of incorporated areas, but a concealed carry permit is required to carry concealed within the limits of an incorporated city or town. In Montana, Utah, South Carolina, and New Hampshire, bills are being discussed that would allow Vermont style carry.[19][20][21][22]
The Federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 limits where an unlicensed person may carry.


Concealed Carry in the United States

As for the recklessness of the senator. I fear this is just being used as another nail in the coffin of responsible gun owners/carriers. They glorify the stupidity and never write about the good that is done from said responsible gun owners/carriers to further the fear and rhetoric of the masses to push through more stringent gun laws.

As many have stated, you NEVER EVER point any type of weapon whether it be a gun, bow, pellet gun, etc at anything that you dont intend to kill. Rule #1.

Even if i just watched the person unload it, check the chamber, lock it open(if semi-auto) and hand it to me... I still check all of those things when the weapon is handed to me, just for my own piece of mind. Never trust anyone else's checking abilities other than your own, IMHO

My .02¢

Silver



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The situation that lead up to her pulling the gun out doesn't even matter.

The fact that she would pull it on a single person is problematic.

That she actually pulled it out in a room full of people is insane, PERIOD.

Instead of having one mistaken target, she had many!



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AutomaticSlim
Gun owners 101
1) Always consider a gun loaded until you determine otherwise
2) Never point a loaded gun at anything you don't intend to shoot


Here's how I learned it:
1) Always consider a gun loaded.
2) Never point a loaded gun at anything you don't intend to destroy (kill):

This stupid woman gives the rest of us gun owners a bad name. She is clearly not responsible enough to carry one. Apparently the elite aren't required to get TRAINING.

While I am very pro-second amendment, I do think that people should be required to go through a training course on the proper technique and consequences of using a handgun before they can carry. Without fees or licenses, by the way, maybe something to cover the cost of the initial training.

While the right to bear arms should not be infringed, this isn't 1776 when everyone owned and knew how to use a gun. Now, most people don't know. Even those with experience need to school up when they buy a new firearm that has operating features that are unfamiliar to them.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by civilchallenger
 


Sure, just try to show your "cute gun" to next police officer you encounter.
I assure you your "rude" gesture will not go by unnoticed.


Half the point of my post is that within the context of the situation, it was exceptionally obvious the reporter was not in danger of being shot. Me doing that the police officer would be a completely different context, so you can't compare the two situations.

Police officers are gun-ho maniacs. Even pointing a cell phone at one is grounds for execution in many police officers eyes.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by civilchallenger

The whole "jail her" idea is ridiculously unreasonable and nonsensical. She can simply be told "hey, its considered rude and threatening to point a gun at someone, so don't do it". So there you have it. Problem solved without use of jail or other extreme measures.


Anyone that can't figure out on their own that pointing a firearm at someone is rude and threatening must be severely retarded and has no business even owning a gun.

True, but the 2nd amendment makes no exceptions for severely mentally retarded people. Therefore you don't get to take away her gun.


I agree that jail time shouldn't be imposed but she should at least lose her permit to carry and be charged with a "mistermeaner"


But I'm not so naive as to believe that their aren't separate, hypocritical double standards for the privileged as opposed to the rabble.

All men are created equal but some are just more equal than others.

This might be special treatment or maybe the reporter just didn't report it to the police. In which case, not getting arrested is pretty obvious. You don't really know that special treatment is a factor. Personally, I get sick of people going to prison for pointing a firearm at someone exactly when they are warranted. So, I'm concerned about people pointing a firearm at someone being protected rather than punished.
edit on 13-7-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by civilchallenger
 


Sure, just try to show your "cute gun" to next police officer you encounter.
I assure you your "rude" gesture will not go by unnoticed.


Half the point of my post is that within the context of the situation, it was exceptionally obvious the reporter was not in danger of being shot.


A loaded gun pointed at the reporters chest and he is in no danger of being shot?


The only reason I can think of that you would make such a stupid statement is that somehow, someway you have an agenda to make excuses for that dumbass *****. Or perhaps your pride is standing in the way of reason.

People are killed with firearms accidentally almost daily and you still maintain the reporter was in no danger.


Using your brand of logic it must be ok for drunks to drive around in the proper context.

edit on 13-7-2011 by whaaa because: get a clue



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
When one considers that journalism as a profession rates slightly above "child molesters", but ceratinly below "armed robbery", I think subduing them at gun point is appropriate.

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P J O'Rourke



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join