Man carries Rifle to Health Care Protest……And the Liberals wet themselves.

What would have been the reaction is in 2003 people showed up to Bush functions armed protesting the cost, fraud, and waste of taxpayer dollars on a war of choice in Iraq?

They'd be dead.

...and the hypocritical right would've cheered., saying that they stopped another terrorist.

When the right does it?

**crickets**

I think that the invitations actually read "leave your guns at home or cheney will go hunting with you". Bush didn't attend open events.

I'd like to see Cheney go hunting with this guy here

their is no speculation people were arrested for carrying signs.

Yeah, it's easy to speculate about what might have happened. But it didn't. This did.

Your right we cant speculate what would have happened if protesters showed up with assault weapons. It couldn't reach that point Bush and the GOP were such pussies they cowered in fear and arrested people for T-shirts:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14041

Did you speak out then for the violations of rights? Or is only the 2nd important to you?

Bush didn't have town hall meetings much- his handlers didn't want his idiocy to show

Bush "town halls" were by invitation and careful screening only, as were the "questions" asked him

A person could not get in his "town hall meetings" with even a negative T shirt on, much less a gun

MORE Bush bashin? <yawn>

Bush "townhalls" were by invitation and careful screening only

What a coincidence, so are Barry's!

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, honey!

What a coincidence, so are Barry's!

While that's true -- the Secret Service insists on that sort of thing, you're displaying the intellectual dishonesty that's the hallmark of the Bush Conservative.

The Bush townhall meetings allowed no dissent. If you asked a dissenting question, you were quickly ejected. The Obama townhall meetings have all allowed dissenting questions.

If the subject matter makes you <yawn> I suggest you not read it, rather than being dishonest about it. Tilting at windmills when the facts are so obvious and documented just kills your credibility.

The Obama townhall meetings have allowed dissenting questions

From planters, like the little girl and her remark about "mean posters", yes I'm sure she thought of that ALL BY HERSELF. Talk about dishonesty, tsk tsk tsk.

If you want to go down this road, here's a couple of tidbits for you to noodle on. You damn libs ALWAYS come back to Bush. Ok, now the shoe's on the other foot. Let's do just that.

You Obama supporters, be honest now. Read the following and
tell me how you would have reacted:


If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the
Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of
inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given
him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have
approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod
containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this
embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia,
would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to
the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a
minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of
advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income
taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer
to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the
fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried
again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you
have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as
"proof" of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go
plant a single tree on "Earth Day", would you have concluded he's a
hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One

flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown
Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they
actually "get" what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a
teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference,
would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on
his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood
victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless
than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing
political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a
major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do
so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt,
which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year,
would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again
10 times within that year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's
holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM,
would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved ?



So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so
brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's
done all the above in just 8 months -- so be patient you've still got
three years and four months to come up with an answer.

What is ironic, and the armed nut doesn't get, is that if this were "revolutionary days" as he referenced, "back in 1776", he'd be owned as property - a slave.

Just what I was thinking. Expecting the firts shots to be fired by the crazies. Will Newt be the next Franco?

Whatever happens, I gaurantee two things: 1. Newt will still be fat. 2. Newt will still be full O' $hit!

Mr. Davenport:

You really showed your education with post #4. LMAO! This just goes to show the supporters of Obama and their true colors. If you can't say anything constructive or add anything worthwhile to the discussion attack! I'll be waiting for you to blame Bush or play the race card, it shouldn't be long! ROTFLMAO! The lefties sure do get touchy when Obamas lies and his failures come to light and they have to accept the facts. Damn listening to them and reading their posts is the best comic relief going.

Funny you should mention the OK corral. Sheriff Wyatt Earp usually had a policy of all firearms being checked in with him at his discretion.

Second amendment protesters would have been disarmed, or told to leave, then told to STFU!! Maybe the Clanton bros. were second amendment fanatics too, huh? Doesn't sound like Doc Holliday cared much for the second amendment either.

Too bad our Maricopa county sheriff doesn't have the guts of Wyatt Earp.

I would concur. While they certainly have the right to bring their firearms to the protests, my question is what is the reason for it?

It may be legal, but it simply doesn't make sense to me.

ScienceGuy-good comparison-It wouldn't be appropriate to carry a gun to church or school either.I support the right to bear arms,but there is a time and a place.All they are doing is starting the next wave of anti-gun legislation.Thanks-idiots.

-It wouldn't be appropriate to carry a gun to church

Oh but, they do on Sundays and hold raffles there for a handgun as well.

WRONG some were teabaggers and from FreedomWorks and a ST Louis Post reporter.

NO

Let’s define by your term “union thugs”.

So you cannot back that up. But, there were organized teabaggers there.

Note I did not call them thugs as you have done I called them what they are corporate lemmings.

So it was totally acceptable for this to happen at polling places during the election and then let thet antagonizers and intimidators go unpunished, give them a pass?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds!

So union member(s) being arrested. So were teabaggers and one reporter. I have belonged to IATSE so what. You use the term thug not me.

LOL.

Is the danger point being missed? If one is worried about violence, is it not just PRUDENT to come prepared to protect yourself????

You can protect yourself without a gun genius. It is called a fist fight. If you disagree with somebody and it gets violent a fist fight will ensue, be broken up and then they go their separate ways. Not so when guns are involved. Look, I am all for gun rights ( I am a democrat), but you have to a show a little fore thought in these kind of situations. Just because you CAN bring a gun does not mean you HAVE to bring a gun. I do not feel the need to carry a gun on me 24/7, especially at very charged and unstable public meeting. What good could possibly come from bringing a firearm to a public meeting? Now what could possibly go wrong?

You can protect yourself without a gun genius. It is called a fist fight

The Mayor of Milwaukee, Tom Barrett just proved that isn't true. He just got out of the hospital for protecting someone else, after a guy beat him with a pipe.

And the guy is in jail, and the Mayor is OK.

So....what's your point?

Here's the article from stltoday.comit's the St. Louis Post-Dispatch website.

It doesn't identify anyone of the people arrested as being part of any union, and the guy who was assaulted was payed by the Tea Party organization. That makes him a lobbyist I guess.

AWM

Why do you consider them thugs, is that your way of dehumanizing them or just your way of trying to call them names?

If you are going to call them thugs, can we call those spittle driven teabaggers at the town hall meetings thugs also?

Please watch this video on YouTube. At the 0:46 mark, it shows an armed man carrying a large sign upon which is written, "IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY."

Now, I have no problem with people bearing arms in general. Actually, I'm in favour of it, and have written passionately in favour of doing so many a time. However, just like with everything else, there are appropriate ways to engage in any legal behaviours, and inappropriate ways. So what this guy was doing was not illegal in any sense, but I do believe it was unethical.

And I believe it harms Americans' right to bear arms in general. Once the government begins associating political protest of any sort with the potential for violence, or heaven forbid, actual violence, those rights are going to be further eroded. It only takes a few bad apples to ruin it for everyone.

Respectfully, a right to protest, and a right to a political statement, somehow becomes silenced when your opposition shows up to a debate fully armed and bearing a sign indicating their willingness to kill and die because they disagree with you.

I cannot characterise these acts as anything but an attempt at intimidation.

You see this sort of thing happening in countries where there is little law and order, btw. Countries on the verge of collapse or which have collapsed completely. Civilised, Western nations do not have people showing up to venues hosting their democratically elected leader with firearms.

Responsible gun owners will find themselves losing (yet again) because of a handful of irresponsible folks who can't seem to see where the line is drawn between common sense and crazy.

nobody seemed to wet themselves when the feds massacred them people at waco texas... a little off subject but proves the point that folks in general are hypocrites. nobody wet themselves when US troops were expected to conduct counterinsurgency operations in iraq with scarce body armor, unarmored humvees, and no personal protective equipment. Stupidity. When blackwater private military contractors deployed to "curb gangs" in post-Karina New Orleans...nobody wet themselves or blogged or did anything....People should be wetting themselves because our nation has the worst health care in the industrialized world and pays the most for it.

But i have it figured out. America is too busy fighting itself to death while bigger problems are occuring that we have control over, but we choose to ignore them because of apathy and distraction of fighting over semantics.

alkimija, angrywhite -

Nice to see both your relevant and thoughtful comments in between the usual liberal nonsense attacks on an otherwise good article.

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.

Yeah - that's "merely" 2nd Amendment of our Constitution!

But is does not mean gun owners (like myself) should not show good judgment in where and when we bring our guns. And it does not mean you should be yelled at for following the Constitution, either.

;)

Yup.

What you don't seem to realize is that bringing a gun to a political debate is an affront to the very freedoms you are defending. You say you don't "condone or condemn" this action, but you should be condemning it. It is unambiguously condemnable. What this person did goes against the very concept of freedom of speech and open discourse, which is the foundation of the first amendment. That principle is even more important than the one protected by the second. An armed citizenry without a protected freedom of speech is incredibly dangerous.

You really like using that term union THUGs’ don't you like it carries some special meaning for you? Why not just call the Republikans what they really are greedy, selfish and self centered thieves and if the show of armed people will give them their way so be it. Besides you do not live in St. Louis, MO do you? I do and you are WRONG as you have been all day.

So were teabaggers and the reporter. I rest my case.

I do know that this supposed victim is unemployed and is a teabagger and has no health insurance. No that’s irony for you.

has no health insurance.

He said he didn't have health insurance, solicited funds for the injuries he claimed to have received but in reality has health insurance under his wife's insurance and his injuries were minor.

While armed, there is no indication that these folks were confrontational in their protests.

Bull@!$%#. This is incredibly dishonest. You do not come to a debate armed with an assault rifle unless it is to intimidate your opponents. Calling this some kind of symbol of freedom is just plain bull@!$%#. There's no other word for it.

You do not come to a debate armed with an assault rifle unless it is to intimidate your opponents.

Whether he meant to intimidate isn't really a question either of you can address for sure. I tend to think it probably was to intimidate, at least partly, but like I said below, that's his business.

However! Even if his intent wasn't to intimidate, only an idiot wouldn't foresee that as a likelihood. If you bring an armed assault rifle, whether you mean to be threatening or not, that's how you're going to come off. So unless this guy is an absolute moron, I think we can all agree that he had to have known how people would read his actions. He had to have known that people would see it as a sign of intimidation.

And at that point, is there really a notable difference between meaning to or not? Either way you know you're going to intimidate, and then you go ahead and do it. I would argue that knowingly intimidating people is wrong either way you slice it.

That's the whole point, though. It is inconceivable that he did not know that his visible possession of an assault rifle would not intimidate people, and so by bringing one anyway the only logical explanation is that he meant to intimidate people. Anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest. You do not bring an assault rifle to a debate for any other reason. The intent was obvious, and it was despicable.

*sighs*

Just like I said elsewhere, the purpose of a firearm - outside of hunting and the range - is always for intimidation. The presence of a firearm readily visible on your person tells other people that you are armed with a formidable, deadly weapon, and that you are prepared to use it.

If firearms weren't intimidating, then they wouldn't deter criminals from attacking people openly carrying firearms. Don't hear about many instances of that happening. That's why it's great for law-abiding citizens to be able to openly carry firearms: rapists and murderers don't like easy prey in general.

However (like I wrote elsewhere), there's an appropriate time and place for every behaviour. What's great in one situation is inappropriate in another. While it is a good decision in general to openly carry a firearm in a city or neighbourhood known for a high rate of crime, it is a bad decision (very, very bad) to take a firearm to a political venue, especially one which is hosting the President.

There isn't all that fine a line drawn between common sense and crazy. If it existed in the material world, it would be a dang big line, about a football field in width, fluorescent orange in colour, and covered with razor wire. Unless you didn't have any common sense in the first place, you'd have to make a pretty conscious decision to abandon all common sense in order to cross over to crazy.

And that's just what these idiots essentially did.

At which rally was the Freedom of Speech more protected? This one? Or the one where a man was assaulted by the Union?

First, no one was assaulted by "the union". When the goal of the right wing protesters is to stir up anger and stifle debate you end up with (surprise!) angry people. Tempers flared and violence occurred. The blame should go to those whose entire goal was to rile people up rather than actually discuss the issues. People like this want violence to occur because they want the focus to be "I was assaulted" rather than "I had nothing to contribute to these debates". The last thing they want is for the media to point out that their opposition is actually presenting an argument for their proposal while the right wing is just making noise.

This goes hand in hand with the other incident in which a gun was brought to the debate. In both cases free speech was exactly what the right wingers were trying to stop. They succeeded in both cases, as they have in most of these "town hall" meetings. They are stopping the debate all over the country through whatever means necessary.

Shouting down your opponents to end a debater is not promoting free speech. Bringing a gun to the debate in order to intimidate your opponents is not promoting free speech. Both of those are actually actions opposed to free speech. So in neither case was free speech protected, and in both cases it was the fault of those whose entire goal was to stop the debate from happening.

can't we kiss and make up? I'm sure the politicians would love for ya'll to do that. . . . while your kissing. . . they will be stealing your wallets . . .

The heading of this article would be more accurate if it read: "Unstable man shows up at presidential event armed, and conservative gun nuts wet their pants in envy, plan more armed protests as result."

I keep seeing reference to "assault rifle" Were these real "assault rifles" or semi automatic rifles that are often confused and mislabeled by the press and anti-gunners as being "assault rifles."

I could lay a military M4 and a M15 semi-auto side by side. Many people would claim they see 2 assault rifles when only one is actually an "assault rifle". The other is just a rifle.

The word "assault rifle" is often thrown around and used to promote fear of people having machine guns.

Fair enough, USA. Replace every use of the word "assault rifle" in all of my comments with "rifle" and nothing changes. My argument is the same, and nothing I said is invalidated. I will try to be more careful in the future, but this is a minor point that is only an attempt at distracting people from the real argument: you don't carry a rifle (or any weapon) to a debate unless it is to intimidate your opponent.

USA, you will note that in my article I refered to it as a rifle.

Yes, I noticed in the article they are called rifles. I just wanted it clear in the discussion since I was seeing "assault rifle" used by more than one person.

Adam, I just ended up posting behind your comment. I know others were throwing the term around as well. I wasn't singling you out.

I'm impressed by the knowledge you display of firearms, but really....who cares?

Why is it that gun "enthusiasts" feel the need to point out that a rifle may or may not be an "assault" rifle? Are any rifles referred to as "defense rifles"?

In my opinion, all firearms qualify as assault weapons as they are made for one purpose, and one purpose only. Currently I see firearms being used to inflate some people's own self image, like the nut in Phx. with the rifle and pistol. That is irresponsible handling of firearms.

In reality, it makes a material difference of whether it is an assault rifle or not usually... but in this discussion it is a distinction without meaning because he took a military-grade semi-auto rifle to a political rally. For the purposes of this discussion, an unconcealed gun is a gun is a gun.

he took a military-grade semi-auto rifle to a political rally.

It was a staged stunt by a right wing fringe group trying to get a little free press.

KGMO:

Those aren't mutually exclusive propositions... he did what I said to accomplish what you said.

He wasn't just out taking a walk with his AR 15. He wasn't there to find out more info about healthcare reform, and the groups this guy associates with are domestic terrorists.

Are we not on the same page here? I think that what he did is one of the most serious offenses one can commit short of violence. It's akin to treason because one that does that is actively harming the country by impairing political debate through intimidation. I think, as AWM already stated, that this guy showed up for some kind of gun protest without regard for the unintended but very real negative consequences that have caused major blowback onto the entire pro-gun movement. It's even caused some fissures in the pro-gun group because a number (we're in the minority but we're a sizeable minority) of people I know that own guns are very wound up that this guy thought he could get away with toting a rifle in plain sight to a political rally because it makes them think of the kind of behavior we're fighting against in Islamic countries. This is the kind of bush league politics you see in Iraq where guys show up with guns and they influence the debate. I don't think "Chris," whoever he is, has any clue what kind of problems he has started for the causes he claims to support. As a concealed carry permit holder, I think this guy is an idiot because he's given anti-gun activists an incident to beat us over the head with when they're talking to moderates that think only extremists take guns to political rallies and then conflate people like me (who have the good sense to leave my gun home when I go campaigning) with people like this dumbass and then start thinking it would be a good idea to take both of our guns away.

Are we not on the same page here?

You know what? We are more than you might think. I don't own a gun but I support gun ownership. I'm glad that some of the folks who speak loudly about their right to own a gun are speaking up to denounce this kind of nonsense.

It appears I mistook your post for one of those who are making the argument that they have the right to swing their fist and it's my fault if my face gets in the way.

I don't hate guns or hate people that love guns. I like guns and I get tired of people calling liberals pussies because we hate guns.

Far too often, the conversation on newsvine is hijacked by people that not only "love" guns, but seem to have an unhealthy obsession with all things firearms related. In this instance we have an obviously ubalanced person bringing not one, but two firearms to a presidential event. This is the natural result when you have very well funded corporate backed opposition to a president that threatens profits, and anti-government paranoid second amendment extremists. The inevitable mix is a very dangerous volitile element that is just waiting for a spark, and the media is nearby, playing with matches.

Both groups have the effect of escalating the other's rhetoric in a tandem that has become one extreme threatening group, with the aim of toppling our duly elected government. In another era, say....1945, this group would have had the crap kicked out of them by an America that just beat the crap out of their role models - facism and totalitarianism.

We need to adopt the patriotic stance of then, and show these idiots the door.

Which event are you talking about? I don't think the one mentioned in the article was a "presidential evident". I'm pretty sure it was not one of the town halls where Obama showed up. It was just one of the many other town hall events.

I live in Phx., AZ., and trust me, the event this article is based on was indeed a presidential one. The gun nut that denies he's a conservative is a member of a conservative militia type group that blathers on and on about their freedoms being attacked from an imaginary government. The author may have left out the fact that it was a presidential address to the VFW in Phx., AZ., and the gunnut was outside of the hall it was held in. Now....why would he leave THAT out??

What event did you think it was?

AZPaddy,

You're in PHZ, AZ and I am in STL, MO and AWG is in MT somewhere and calling the shots like Cronkite did for football game with the phone lines down. The only thing Cronkite got right was the winning team's name.

KGMO:

I'm a conservative Democrat. I'm pretty liberal on cultural issues but I'm moderate to right about guns. I think that every American starts off with the right to own a gun and carry it, concealed, for their protection. However, I also believe that one forfeits that right when they are convicted of a felony or a violence-related misdemeanor since they have illustrated that they have, at the very least, questionable impulse control. As a group, these are people we don't want to be legally sending out into our communities with a firearm because it's too easy to envision them losing control of their impulses, again, deciding that the right method of action is to harm someone and then having them draw their gun, start shooting people and be equally armed as the police when they arrive. People with a track record of viewing violence as an acceptable form of conflict resolution are not acceptable candidates to be legally endowed with lethal force by society. Second, I believe that if a citizen is going to exercise their right to carry a gun for self-defense that the government, in addition to subjecting them to a background check for the first issue I outlined, should also deny CCPs (Concealed Carry Permits) to anyone convicted of weapons violations in the past. Another requirement should be IMHO that private entities not be allowed to give the classroom instruction and gun range training that qualifies one for a CCP. Only law enforcement agencies should be allowed to give the qualification coursework and range time. Given my experience receiving my training from the Hamilton Police Department, the law enforcement agencies know from the inside-out the best methods to teach to potential CCP holders, especially if CCP holders are to be considered the first line of defense for a community from a threat and are depended upon to manage outcomes towards a lawful ending until law enforcement arrives and can effect an end to the incident.

I think that many times gun owners or pro-gun people agitate for gun owners to maintain the rights they have and expand on them while conveniently ignoring the heavy responsibilities that gun owners are taking on by possessing a gun. AWM was in the military and I was raised in a family of veterans (though I couldn't go myself) and I think that other gun owners should know our responsibilities and take them as seriously as he and I do. If one is going to own a gun, they need to abide by rules that sound simple but following them faithfully is, literally, a life or death matter. Rule 1 first and foremost is that you never aim your gun at someone that you do not intend to kill. This can have two catastrophic consequences if you are not following it. The first is that aiming at someone before you've identified them as a threat requiring lethal force can end in an innocent person being killed because of the handler's negligence. The second is that if you have made the decision that you need to employ lethal force to protect yourself or others and you bring that gun into play without being ready to pull the trigger and take a life, odds are you will be handing this dangerous threat your weapon to be used at their disgression on you and anyone you were trying to protect. Second is that if you are carrying a gun, open or concealed, it is your #1 responsibility to make sure that it never leaves your possession. If your weapon is taken from you and ends up shooting and/or killing someone by the hand of another (because some kid thought it was a toy or because an assailant caught you unaware and managed to arm himself because you weren't prepared and vigilant) that injury or death is first and foremost on your head because your negligence armed the perpetrator. Third, it is your responsibility to keep that gun out of the hands of anyone that might use it irresponsibly or illegally and that means taking all necessary precautions including a lockbox, safe, trigger lock, etc. Assess who could gain access to the gun and employ that level of security because it's not trivial, especially when someone dies. We had a man in Hamilton recently that didn't trigger lock his gun even though he thought he successfully hid it from his five year old son. The boy found it, accidentally shot himself in the chest and died. The father was charged but that's really a pittance compared to the intense grief that he is sure to live with every day for the rest of his life because one seemingly unimportant irresponsible act on his part led to his son's death. The third rule is the one that I most often see broken, much to my chagrin, because the most innocent people are injured and killed because the third rule is ignored and they are totally preventable. Fourth, and something that is often overlooked, is that when you fire at an assailant you are responsible for where every round from your gun ends up. Killing an assailant means nothing if you maim or kill an innocent bystander. If a person doesn't feel comfortable with that responsibility, they should not carry a weapon nor agitate for people that don't understand those "rules of the road" as it were to be allowed IMHO."

I stand corrected. The fact that the President was there makes this an even worse offense.

I'm still wondering how the author of this article ommitted the fact that the event was a presidential address to the annual VFW meeting.

Honest mistake? HHHmmmmm.....

Oh! my mistake. I'm sure the gunnut just happened by while a Presidential event was being held, and just happened to run into a few dozen Friends, seeing how the protest outside had nothing to do with the "Presidents forum" that they "didn't show up at".

You have to admit that omitting the fact that it was a presidential event seems odd, as if these armed weirdos would have been there if president Obama wasn't there.

As someone who did not know that this was a Presidential event, I feel somewhat insulted by your last comment. You basically just implied that I was stupid for not knowing already. There have been many of these town hall meetings all over the country. I had no idea that this one in particular was held by Obama, and there's no reason I should be expected to know that. You wrote an article about about the event, and so it is your responsibility to explain the relevant details of the event while making your case.

Leaving that piece of information out is a pretty glaring hole in the article. I'm not going to assume it was deliberate, but I will say that it should have been mentioned at some point. You made a mistake leaving it out.

In my opinion, the omission was probably due to AWM's subconscious desire to deflect criticism away from a fellow gun rights advocate, no matter how wrong bringing two firearms to a presidential address is. When you consider the name "AngryWhiteMan", and the photo of presumably, an AngryWhiteMan taking careful aim with a rifle, the inference is clear: I'm angry, white, and armed. Watch out! Also, the title of this thread itself, is rather inflammatory, in that it takes a verbal swipe at "Liberals", and why, God only knows.

You are absolutely correct, Adam, in thinking AWM left a glaring hole in the article. Am I being "nitpicky"? Not really. The armed gunnut said he was there armed, because he can, in response to the question of why he was armed at a presidential address of the VFW.

Sorry if I come off a bit sarcastic AWM, but in my opinion, when you title an article in the manner you have, you can expect to be called on it. If you don't care for that, submit it to the N.R.A. instead. They like that sort of language.

I think the people that bring guns to a Presidential event are secretly working against the the NRA, obviously they want to get all guns banned, the only other explanation is that they are stupid, who knows?

Why don't we cut AWM some slack and split the difference? He puts it in the article and we're okay with it from here on.

AWM #9.24

Thanks for typing slowly and vertically and adhering so closely to the C.o.H.

Angry indeed.

BTW, I'm devastated.

Azzix

I read the comment that was deleted and your point was well taken, obvious, and contained the same verbage as AWM's 9.24 comment.

The deletion was totally uncalled for.

I

Dont

Give

One

Rat

@!$%#

What

You

Think

Then

why

the

@!$%#

are

you

here

debating

your

opinion?

Adam, since you feel offended by 9.21, which may be percieved to have a personal attack in it, I've deleted it.

Thank you.

To be perfectly honest, I expect to see some kind of bill introduced very soon to ban Firearms from protests, within so many feet of protests, within so many feet of a political gatherings, etc

You are exactly right.Because of their need to express themselves I also see legislation coming soon with more support than it had a few days ago.I would bet the people in charge of the NRA are shaking their heads at the amount of damage done to their cause.This does nothing to further the right to bear arms.

To be perfectly honest, I expect to see some kind of bill introduced very soon to ban Firearms from protests,

Our firearms law in Georgia prohibits possession or even bringing a firearm to any public gathering. It means you could conceivably be breaking the law by "bringing" a firearm in your car, say, to a Braves game. It's really vague and silly and we are working to get it changed.

You can open carry in Oregon just like AZ no big deal but there is a time and place but, not at a Presidential gathering seems to be just screwed up thinking. Of course this kind of action is what gets firearms banned.

Of course this kind of action is what gets firearms banned.

I don't think so.

How many decades have the Liberals tried to get that to happen?

seems to be just screwed up thinking

Screwed up thinking begets screwed up thinking if that's the case. This Non-Bill is screwed up and twisting people in knots. Itsa even tying the administration up in knots as they can't even get their own people on the same page when they speak. When one of their own comes out and says one thing and someone else in their own party has to come out to say they didn't mean it and says this is what they really meant, its screwed up!

One event that goes really wrong will bring laws you will not want to see and it has been done before and overturned yes but, they can be brought back again and maybe stronger who knows.

That's a possibility, but at least it can be rescinded. You have to live with the law for at least 4 years. This was a law on the Arizona books, so, they did nothing wrong.

That's the political way.

It's just a matter of time till a gun nut - say a Timothy McVey - decides he just wants to teach those damn liberals a lesson and opens up with his "assualt" rifle and kills as many people as he can. McVey wasn't on medication, or escaped from custody. He was pretty much similar to many here when it comes to hatred of the government and "Liberals".

It's not a matter of IF, but when.

Too bad.

lupis

I'm very glad you equate these present hard line evil gun totters with the hard line evilo gun totters of the past. Works for me.

Angry-I honestly think they may have hurt the gun cause.The politicians getting nervous is all it will take.

I think it also places a great deal of responsibility on those that own them.

. . . and considering just how many people do own them, I think one must say, most do take their responsibility seriously.

most do take their responsibility seriously.

About as good as birth control.

The nut in question would be viewed as a nut if he had gone to the local mall armed as he was. Too bad the "liberal' press didn't ask if had gone shopping with his AR15 over his shoulder. After all, he claimed he did it "because I can".

His intent was to intimidate the president of the United States. I really wish someone had just @!$%# slapped him for that stupid stunt.

All they have done is upset the Obama-worshippers and the people that know absolutely nothing about guns that get scared when they hear "assault rifle".

you could have left that out completely and had an excellent unbiased view but you just couldn't.

to bad they are demeaning what is a privilege by flaunting their right in all of Americas face... for political gain,,,

You could bring it in my back yard. I've got a 300 yd range with 50 yd elec cable target set up.

jaywow:

I want to come and play in your backyard. Can I bring my Barrett 82A1? We may have to really look for ammo as I haven't been able to find much over the past 6 months so I have a fellow shooter re-loading for me.

Naw them barrets are too damm loud, even with a suppressor. Not like on TV. Hahaha.

jaywow:

You got that right, and I don't have a suppressor as I would have to have a tax stamp to own one. And a suppressor is not a necessity for sport shooting, just for other things that I have no intention of being involved with. I just got back from my shooting club and shot 4 rounds of sporting clays, had a great time and didn't hurt anyone! Will do it again tomorrow. Have a good one jaywow and keep banging them for fun!! Also, I think we may have found some common ground even though we disagree on many things from time to time, so it shows there is still hope for all of us. LOL, have a good one.

Evil 1,

The tax stamp is from the ATF right? Face value $200.00 correct.

You too Evil.

Peace

JACKDEATH:

As I stated in my post I do not have a suppressor so I do not have nor do I need a tax stamp. But from my understanding the stamps are issued by the ATF after and extensive background check (the same for private ownership of a fully automatic weapon) and passage of that check. You then must register with the ATF and the FBI and the stamp must be with the weapon at all times and the individual who was issued the stamp is the only one who may posses it and the suppressor or weapon. As for the cost, and I haven't researched it, I thought it was $500.00. I may be wrong on this figure or it could be different amounts for suppressors and fully automatic weapons. I'll check with some of my friends in the Marshall's and see if I can get the facts.

Thats OK I collect Federal Revenue stamps and there are only two left today.

The $200 face automatic firearms transfer if it has not changed and Federal Duck Hunting yearly $15

JACKDEATH:

You were correct the fee for the Tax Stamp is $200.00 for any Title II weapons and suppressors fall under this category. It is fully explained in the National Firearms Act and all weapons falling under this category are listed.

The point I was making, is that of someone saying "Hey, we know our rights. You call us evil mongers when we protest, but that's our right. Just like it's our right to bear arms". Thus, a political statement.

To be honest, that seems very much like an extreme oversimplification that completely ignores that you yourself see a judgment issue as well as the connection you yourself made with the idea of the 2nd amendment as a 'means to correct' a situation and the lines you used that the protesters wanted their representatives to "Reread the second amendment" in regards to a debate that has nothing to do with the right to bear arms..

Bearing arms is an exercise of a Constitutional right. But as we can see, notwithstanding the judgement issue, it's not being accepted as such.

I've got two questions, although maybe they're just different parts of the same topic.
Regarding "it's not being accepted as such" - where it is not being accepted as his constitutional right to do so?
And secondly, should all actions, if they are within the definitions of 'constitutional rights,' be above criticism or question?

And very few have acknowledged, or have glazed over the fact that this is his right.

Here's what makes me curious - Why must they 'mention' that he was 'within his rights'?

See, I would think the statement you put forth - that it 'hasn't been accepted as his constitutional right' - would imply that his right to do so were being 'challenged.' Not addressing the constitutionality of the issue would seem to... be absent of acceptance or rejection of the constitutionality.

If it isn't an issue, why bring it up?

Needing it be addressed when it isn't being questioned would be like every news broadcast beginning, "Protestors, with their freedom of speech, said..." "Known professor Johnson, speaking with his first amendment rights, talked on the economy with..." "We, with out freedom of the press, delved into the matter and want to report..." "Local pastor lead his congregation, with their freedom of religious expression, in prayer last sunday before a softball match..."

Look at my list, and tell me which of those you would criticize. Substitute Bush's name for Obama, and tell me if you feel the same for them.

That's not really an answer to my question, is it? it is comparative meaninglessness to the discussion.

The constitutionality of his actions haven't been questioned. You personally question his judgment. What's wrong with other criticisms that have nothing to do with the constitutionality of the action being raised?

It doesn't matter what his right is. His goal was to stifle debate, and that's the story. I'm not calling for him to be arrested, but the story is that the right wing is trying to shut down the debate, and this guy took it to an even further extreme by trying to actually scare people away by bringing a rifle along. If you really don't see the problem with this or refuse to admit that there is a problem with it in a free society then there is something wrong with your idea of a free society.

Again, you have not been keeping up with current events. Try watching the video linked in comment #26.

Was this directed at me?

The video seems pretty much unrelated to anything I've said - if you have something to say from it, why not verbalize it yourself?

I have, actually. Current events are that right wing lunatics are going to these town hall meetings and deliberately trying to make people angry to shut down the debate. The fact that violence broke out at some of them is not surprising when the entire goal is to upset people by yelling at them (and often insulting them). The right wingers are not the ones who should feel threatened. They're the ones doing the threatening, and they are the ones instigating violence. This is just one more example.

They are being loud to get the point across to the elitists in DC that this current legislation is unacceptable to them.

I personally understand why someone might think that would work, but there are/have been a few town hall meetings, and there are 300 million people in the U.S. The people at the meetings have sometimes been elected by their entire state, and sometimes by their smaller districts, but it'd seem like someone would realize they need more than just be a handful of loud people to get the idea across that "the people" want something or another thing.

You can be loud and against someone in a campaign, and voice your opinion that one candidate is unacceptable to you, but if they win, they've won the majority of the votes in that election, and the loud dissenter's unacceptance isn't going to be heard regardless of how loud it was.

I am personally very surprised that I find myself needing to say that perhaps civil discussion, or a civil organization and appeal with alternatives and points might be a better way at convincing someone rather than a blowhorn.

Current events are that Americans are going to town hall meetings and voicing their displeasure with their elected officials.

Shouting and insulting is not a valid way to "voice displeasure" at a town hall meeting where the whole point is to actually talk about the issues. Shouting is only necessary when you're not being listened to. These meetings are a way of saying "we're listening. come tell us what you think". Rather than just telling people what they think and talking about the issue, these people are choosing to do everything they can to make sure that no one else gets heard. At that point it becomes less about voicing an opinion and more about shoving it down people's throats.

What would your opinion be about that type of legislation?

I am a gun owner and avid collector of firearms. I beg to differ when you say that no one has taken away my rights to bear arms. As I live in california, there are a number of weapons which I am not legally allowed to posess. One such weapon is the AR-15. I am also not allowed to posess a magazine which can carry more than 10 rounds. I cannot posess or purchase a pistol where the magazine loads in front of the trigger. I cannot have a bayonet lug installed on a rifle. I cannot own a rifle with a pistol grip.

so they have at least in part taken away my right to bear arms.

not trying to argue, just thought I would put that out there in case you were unaware.

That is CA law NOT Federal law.

California, Why would you need those things? I mean, most gun owners claim that they just want to protect themselves and their family if an intruder comes into their house. I would really like to know why those guns, etc. are so important to you.

By the way, you still own guns (several of them...am I right?) The right to bear arms (2nd Amendment) was not written for the benefit of gun collectors. I don't have anything against gun collectors, as long as no one can possibly gain access to steal them from you. I understand the hobby of collecting. I am a collector myself.

I don't think that the law keeping you from owning these guns, etc. is a statement about you so much as it is to protect the rest of us from those guns, etc. accidentally getting into the wrong hands and being used in a crime.

You also can't own a nuclear weapon. Is that a violation of your rights? If not then there must be a line somewhere, and that line is going to be somewhat arbitrary and subjective.

haha...heres a nuclear weapon arguement. Nobody is asking to possess nuclear weapons or missiles so drop it. Arms pertains to firearms, not missiles or weapons of mass destruction. You can, however, legally own a armored vehicle, jet aircraft, and helicopter...just food for thought.

Nobody is asking to possess nuclear weapons or missiles so drop it.

That's the point, though. Almost everyone recognizes that there are legitimate limits to which weapons people should be allowed to own. The disagreement is just where to draw the line.

i am thinking that showing off their weapons would be the same as a person cherrying out a mustang and taking it to a car show. doesnt mean that he or she is speed racer, just means they like their car(s)

California, I never thought of it that way. Interesting! I am sure that in some situations you are correct. On the other hand, I am sure that some gun owners get off on showing what they have in their arsenal in case someone decides to cross them. You know...the "tough guy" complex.

please point out where gun owners brandished their weapons....because i cannot see that. People did have them holstered and slung over their shoulders...hardly showing off. I believe that bringing a firearm to a sensible political discussion is asinine however, though technically legal....

When you are openly carrying an assault styled weapon to a town hall meeting, you are showing off. Even on your planet that's showing off. When you openly carry a rig like the guy holding the sign was you are showing off. Even on your planet you are showing off. When you bring a concealed weapon to a town hall meeting and drop it on the floor you are showing off and blatantly stupid. Even on your planet that would stupid and showing off.