Guns At Obama Rally!

Originally posted by CrowServo

A far more practical solution would be to break out of the paradigm of violence being met with violence.

Yeah. Those new age criminals love that new age paradigm.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by CrowServo

 

I'm just wondering should the cops not carry their loaded weapons to presidential events?

Cops and secret service agents are people just like this guy, you and me. What is stopping from one of them from turning on a president?

The only difference between them and us is that they were trained by the government. Should those people not carry weapons either?

Cops are no different than you or me or anybody else, except for the fact that they dress in a uniform and wear a badge and enforce the laws. Why do you feel that citizens shouldn't enforce the laws when a law breaker encroaches on there private property?

This guy was exercising his rights, and he clearly meant no harm.

A secret service agent is most likely mentally stable while some random armed person off the street may or may not be a nut bag who listened to way too many inflammatory talk shows and is hoping to kill off the evil person who they see as a threat. This is not to say people shouldn't be allowed to carry, but to say it a risk to allow them to do so at public political events. Since politics seem to bring out the nuts.

Originally posted by Kaploink

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by CrowServo

 

I'm just wondering should the cops not carry their loaded weapons to presidential events?

Cops and secret service agents are people just like this guy, you and me. What is stopping from one of them from turning on a president?

The only difference between them and us is that they were trained by the government. Should those people not carry weapons either?

Cops are no different than you or me or anybody else, except for the fact that they dress in a uniform and wear a badge and enforce the laws. Why do you feel that citizens shouldn't enforce the laws when a law breaker encroaches on there private property?

This guy was exercising his rights, and he clearly meant no harm.

A secret service agent is most likely mentally stable while some random armed person off the street may or may not be a nut bag who listened to way too many inflammatory talk shows and is hoping to kill off the evil person who they see as a threat. This is not to say people shouldn't be allowed to carry, but to say it a risk to allow them to do so at public political events. Since politics seem to bring out the nuts.

I think if someone is nutty enough to shoot at the president, a law banning them from carrying a gun to a political rally isn't going to stop them.

"well, I was going to kill the president today, but damn it, there's a gun law!"


[edit on 12-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

Yep... the MSM is on to a NEW derogatory term - 'birther'.

Oh, how Chris wanted that man to be a 'birther' so he could tear him apart, discouraging average people to look into the issue at all.

Not saying there is an issue, but if there wasn't, why was he trying so hard to nail the man on being a 'birther'?

Originally posted by Kaploink

A secret service agent is most likely mentally stable while some random armed person off the street may or may not be a nut bag ...

Statistically law enforcement personnel are far more likely to experience severe depression, divorce, fits of rage, alcoholism, etc... than the public.

Has to do with the job stress and shuttling drunks and addicts around all day and seeing messed up things all the time etc...

If you're walking down the street and see a cop with a gun and just some guy with a gun that cop is far more likely to harm you than that guy.

Plus, law enforcement, even federal level quals are pretty much a joke. The typical off the street enthusiast or sport shooter is likely be able to "outgun" the average cop in a training session. The cops put a couple hundred rounds down range a year. We put a couple hundred down in a few hours. There are private firearm training schools all over the country that teach better to regular folks than what is taught to the cops by their agencies.

NH is home to at least three of these schools. SIG academy being the largest and best known.

Cops are arguably the least safe people to have guns.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

reply to post by mnemeth1


Gotta love that "Rage at Home" banner under his image during the entire interview.

How proud are we of this guy? He did it right.

I believe that there are many plants that are there to make the well intentioned look as though they are a crazed mobs, and Nazis and such. So you see the disruptors that make the whole, "malitia" look bad.

Malitia sounds like a dirty word that is being pinned on well motivated, concerned, "citizens" a lot lately. I'm thinking our downfall as a nation is now secured.

Now we have the super armed crack selling gangs in place to help to enforce Obamas' rule against the, "pregidous" rebellion and so on. Pretty intelligent way to separate the people from the real issues.

Racism! Racism! You can call me pregidous against the people who tie the cats tails together and throw them across the clothesline!! It is unfortunate that the cats don't have the ability to fight the ones tying their tails together, rather than each other.

Though I'm not much for the accepted bible, I must admit it looks as though we are about to experience the place where it says there will be a time of trouble such as has never been, or will be afterwords. They've got us so dumbed down and lathargic that we are proving to be easy pickins.

Thank you.

No consequencE..

The story is not that a man brought a gun to an Obama staged event.

There is no story.

A man who always carries a gun was at an Obama staged event. He could have been at the movies, or walking his dog. He still would have had the gun.

Interesting how quickly Matthews moved on when the creation of the Fed was mentioned as being a turning point for liberty in this country.

amazing bend in this thread, disposition-wise. and even more interesting the "crackhead" theme to justify use of firearms. when the constitution is not enough to back the firearm debate, lets turn to guarding against "crack." really? could you posture yourselves anymore in here?

whether even the gun bringing was staged or not, things are heating up to scary temperatures thats for sure. another ammo loaded against gun rights.

Originally posted by iknownothingiswear
whether even the gun bringing was staged or not, things are heating up to scary temperatures thats for sure. another ammo loaded against gun rights.

I guess we view things differently.

I look at this as ammo for gun rights.

Here's a man who openly carries a firearm to a public event involving the president and nothing bad happened - to the president or to him.

There are a lot of people in this country that want to openly carry weapons and hopefully this will embolden them to make that stand against tyranny and open carry.

Every time the news highlights this, it puts it in peoples minds that carrying a gun is OK, good people carry guns.




[edit on 12-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by CrowServo
I think that was a very foolish thing to do, no matter what kind of point he was trying to prove. It is no wonder that representatives of the Obama administration are becoming reluctant to attend these gatherings in person. People are edging closer and closer to violence, and if a man can carry a loaded gun to a Presidential event, whatever his individual intentions, that is a cause for concern.

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?

A far more practical solution would be to break out of the paradigm of violence being met with violence. That may not be a popular view, but it is my two cents.

So you prefer to live on your knees than to die standing. That path is for some.

You are wholly wrong in your position that you will go down alone and firing. If the gubmint decided to crack down and the legal gun owners of this country united against them it is beyond the shadow of a doubt the gubmint that would go down. The military even if brought back here en masse is completely dwarfed by true Americans. Ones who believe in liberty and not kowtowing to tyranny as you and your ilk would admittedly do. I'm not sorry if this offends you as your cowardice makes me recoil.

Chris Matthews is a troll...a drama queen.

Take away the Drama and Chris Matthews has no program. Chris Matthews is no different in this than many others. Hannity also comes to mind.

I dont have much use for Drama Queens no matter what their political affiliation.

I salute the state of New Hampshire for its stance on concealed carry long before it became an issue in other states.

If politicians want to represent the public they need to get out into the public just as do the rest of us and take the same risks...not live and work in a cloistered protected enviornment...while limiting our freedoms in every facet.

Last Friday morning while the day shift was coming into work..some of the workers were catching a half hour of sleep in their cars in the parking lot. Someone came up to two of them and robbed them at gunpoint in thier cars. THe sleepers were not armed. We cannot carry guns on company property.

Many Americans like these...(Shipbuilders) take serious risks for their moneys. It is not unreasonable to expect someone in the criminal occupation to take the same risks for thiers....unless of course one is a politician.

Agree with the poster who stated that non violence looks good on paper. This needs to be said more often. Violence is the number one curb on criminal conduct. I can gaurantee you that most bent on criminal activity would rather be caught by the constabulary than by citizenry.
It is not difficult to understand why a government would want disarmed peoples.
Correct to the poster who declared that governments are the number one killer of peoples. This too needs saying and reinforcing and more often.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by Kaploink

A secret service agent is most likely mentally stable while some random armed person off the street may or may not be a nut bag who listened to way too many inflammatory talk shows and is hoping to kill off the evil person who they see as a threat. This is not to say people shouldn't be allowed to carry, but to say it a risk to allow them to do so at public political events. Since politics seem to bring out the nuts.

Why can't the secret service agent listen to too many "inflammatory talk shows"? This what I don't get, it isn't like there is a factory that gives birth and creates secret service agents, or cops or anything else of that matter.

They are people just like you and me. I also remember a report, I'll have to see if I can find, that did psychological analysis of cops and criminals and it was found that cops and criminals are just about the same in their mentality.

I will agree that politics brings out the nuts, but there is no basis to stop people from carrying to political events. I'm sure absolutely positive people brought their weapons to political events for decades before they made a law saying you couldn't conceal carry.

A few nut jobs doesn't justify the banning of anything. Because there will always be nut jobs.

Originally posted by CrowServo
I think that was a very foolish thing to do, no matter what kind of point he was trying to prove. It is no wonder that representatives of the Obama administration are becoming reluctant to attend these gatherings in person. People are edging closer and closer to violence, and if a man can carry a loaded gun to a Presidential event, whatever his individual intentions, that is a cause for concern.

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?

A far more practical solution would be to break out of the paradigm of violence being met with violence. That may not be a popular view, but it is my two cents.

"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"


Let's hear it for modern day idiots, I hope your not a American, really..




[edit on 12-8-2009 by 22-250]

You know he tried to make an issue about why he was carrying the gun, even after they talked about how it was his right to, but why carry it he said, my reply would have been, because it's my right, do I need another reason, in fact I don't need a reason, just my rights.
Anybody else feel like were on the edge of a revolution?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Is this what Matthews is always like? Seems like he should have had a heart attack before Russert.

He's not a plant. He's a Free Stater.

People open carry everyday in NH and whenever there is any sort of political event or protest or rally or even a hearing at the State House residents show up in droves with their guns on their hips.

I'm sure there were numerous guns the cameras didnt see both open and concealed.

There's a reason NH has such low crime rates and high rates of individual freedom.

You dont appreciate out way of doing things then stay out of the state. Please stay the hell out of the state.

I loved his comment on bussed up Massachusetts people.

He definitely was from the region.

reply to post by CrowServo


Yes the government with their supply of the most deadly weapons...yet failed in Vietnam (Although one can say the rules of engagement had something to do with that). Oh an lets now forget Afghanistan and Iraq...they are doing such a good job at taking out the "terrorists".

All im saying is resistance is not entirely futile. But one must also consider if there were no rules of engagement...the government could just level the entire country. I'd rather be armed and stand even a 1% chance then unarmed and stand no chance.

He should have brought up the fact of the media's double standard with free speech. Mathews was clearly annoyed, he should have brought up the fact that they're communists in the whitehouse, he should have brought up the fact that the media is calling calling Americans that protest are terrorists. He should have brought up the fact of blatant government corruption in the whitehouse and goldman sachs.

Overall very good and I give this guy a ton of credit for going on this loony show.

The 2nd Amendment;

I cannot help but perk up my ears, when I see comments that refer to our 2nd amendment as "archaic", "outdated", and my favorite, "originally intended for hunting".

I will not sit here and quote the founding fathers of this country ad naseum, as I am positive that they have been quoted on this very site many times before. However, I am sure that I would be attacked for supporting my argument with the words of slave-traders, so....

The original amendments were not written out of order, nor were they random bits of personal wants that somehow squeezed past the main voting body. The second amendment follows the first, in order to PROTECT the first. Does that make sense?

Okay, if that argument fails to suffice, I only ask that you look up weapons from that time period; The accuracy and range of weapons from that day and age were not provided in an economical range that allowed the average man to own and utilize one for hunting.

What do I mean by that? I mean that it is another example of of the fact that firearms from that day in age were meant as weapons, and placed in our constitution as a right strictly to act as weapons.

You see, one man's trash is another man's treasure, and the same goes for this amendment.
For some, the idea that an armed revolution may take place is scary.
For another man? Necessary.

I think that many have forgotten how this amendment was actually written.
(people love to paraphrase, similar to the 10 commandments)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Everyone who comes to this site should be grateful for the man in the video, and thankful he was well-spoken.

He is the true patriot; Not I, the lone person at his keyboard, railing against government infringement...