Man with assault rifle joins crowds outside president's Phoenix venue

[jakemccoy]

Let's have honest discourse please.

How close do you think this guy could get to the President?

If you think he won't be able to get within handshaking distance, what is the approximate distance away that this guy would have to be so as not to get shot? Pick a distance. If you think he can't get within 5 feet, then what is the distance???

We may have Second Amendment rights around the President. Nevertheless, when the Secret Service disagrees with you, you'll probably get shot.

 

[ArmedBear]

Pick a distance, jake.

Who cares? Again, that's apropos of nothing but your desire to demand that others answer your questions that are unrelated to the issue at hand.

You live in a place where open carry is both illegal and culturally demonized. I used to.

I don't any more.

You probably don't understand what it's like to live somewhere that guns aren't considered inherently evil.

I do, now.

How close someone can get to the President has nothing to do with anything. I'm sure that, if there were any indication that the guy was attacking anyone, the Secret Service would have filled him with holes. 5 feet, or 500 yards. That's their job. So?

 

[ishida]

To you, Jake.

What good are 2nd Amendment Rights when you bow down when they take them?
When you ridicule those who fight for them?

Just who was it who said "leave the guns at home and just watch TV"?
Maybe he shouldn't be part of this movement, especially if he happens ot have a carry permit.

 

[jakemccoy]

Some people are talking pretty big here on the Internet.

By the way, it does matter how close. If he was within, say, 20 feet of the President, then we'd be having a different discussion...

 

[Kingofthehill]

I gotta say, i hope it doesn't come off the wrong way... But im shocked and glad its a black guy doing it.

JOe

 

[DocCas]

Lone_Gunman said

It already has been.

Can you give me an example?

 

[nwilliams]

I'm wondering if this guy had picked a non-EBR style rifle to carry if things wouldn't be viewed differently.

I'm thinking that perhaps his choosing to carry an "assault rifle" he gave the media something more to bitch about. Now when the media talks and writes about this guy they can use words that stir up anger in gun control activist, words like "assault rifle", "military style" and "machine gun".

Perhaps if the guy had picked a .22 bolt rifle or some other very non-threatening rifle to carry it wouldn't be so easy for the anti-gun people to criticize him. If the guy was simply trying to make a statement about the right to own guns then I think he stirred up a bit too much of a hornets nest by choosing to carry an EBR. I personally don't think his goal was to demonstrate his right to carry, he was there as a proud gun owner trying to make a statement. I think he decided to carry an EBR to tick off the gun control freaks and that may have been a mistake.

 

[ArmedBear]

By the way, it does matter how close. If he was within, say, 20 feet of the President, then we'd be having a different discussion...

We would? How so, jake?

The only problem I see with what this guy did was that by choosing to carry an "assault rifle" he gave the media something more to bitch about.

Maybe so, maybe not. I doubt that the fact that he didn't shoot anyone and didn't plan to was completely lost on everyone who saw the picture, no matter how the MSNBC androids ranted about it.

 

[rbernie]

In my lifetime, three presidents have been the target of assassination attempts--one died, one almost died, and the other escaped unharmed. The assassination of a president is a cataclysmic event that strikes at the very heart of democracy, and we should be very careful about evoking memories of those horrible acts.

I don't particularly like our current Prez, but the fact remains that the carrying of a semi-automatic rifle at a presidential event conjures up a lot of bad images and memories, even for a right-leaning gun aficianado like me.

And the fact that nothing bad happened is proof positive that it's possible to be armed and not be a nutzoid homicidal threat to the President (or anyone else).

Just as the case with the armed protester in NH, we (as a community) seem intent upon making this into far more of a negative situation than it really is....

Every time this happens, the newsies froth and rant about the evils of it, and yet at the same time are clearly exposing the simple fact that NOTHING BAD HAPPENED.

 

[jakemccoy]

We would? How so, jake?

If you don't know how the discussion would be different, then never mind.

 

[ArmedBear]

I can perhaps guess some things you might mean. I'm curious about what you DO mean.

Note that YOU said it, and I'm asking for clarification. I didn't just make up the question.

(Given that I know that I could make a head shot at 300 yards with decent optics, I still don't see what difference it makes. The difference, to me, is in whether he sought to attack anyone, or not.)

 

[CoRoMo]

Originally Posted by CoRoMo
What does it matter?

Posted by jakemccoy
Well, if those girls are not in their pajamas, it would take the pic out the "too weird for comprehension" category.

That's right, it doesn't matter to this discussion.
But I'm going to have to tell my wife to stop wearing pajamas out in public now.

 

[jakemccoy]

I'm wondering if this guy had picked a non-EBR style rifle to carry if things wouldn't be viewed differently.

I'm thinking that perhaps his choosing to carry an "assault rifle" he gave the media something more to bitch about. Now when the media talks and writes about this guy they can use words that stir up anger in gun control activist, words like "assault rifle", "military style" and "machine gun".

Perhaps if the guy had picked a .22 bolt rifle or some other very non-threatening rifle to carry it wouldn't be so easy for the anti-gun people to criticize him. If the guy was simply trying to make a statement about the right to own guns then I think he stirred up a bit too much of a hornets nest by choosing to carry an EBR. I personally don't think his goal was to demonstrate his right to carry, he was there as a proud gun owner trying to make a statement.

I know hardly anything about this style of rifle. Most of my experience is with guns that are blued steel and wood. To me, the gun on this guy's back looks like a toy or an airsoft rifle. Few rifles would look less threatening to me. Imagine someone how has even less familiar with guns.

 

[Cougfan2]

Just for grins I went to the Huffingtonpost web site to see if there was any mention of this. The article was posted there as well and the comments clearly showed what I thought they would. More calls for gun control and ranting about gun owners being violent loons.

It's not like the people that patronize that site regularly are our friends, but it shows that they guy with the AK played right into the stereotype of what leftist people think about gun owners.

Not sayin' what the guy did was wrong or right, but you have to realize how most of the public is going to view this. He could have made the same point by open carrying a handgun without looking so much like he was just doing it just to make a point IMHO.

 

[Frandy]

Sure, he has the right to do it, but he's "preachin' to the choir." In my opinion, actions like these don't change people's minds one way or the other. They might even ratchet up the anger and fist-shaking. Sorry, but I don't think we need to ratchet up more anger and fist-shaking.

It's not like the people that patronize that site regularly are our friends, but it shows that they guy with the AK played right into the stereotype of what leftist people think about gun owners.

Well, on this site he plays into another "stereotype," now doesn't he? To many of us, he's a guy who is defending his right to bear arms, showing people that we need to defend our freedoms... For all we know (and I don't), he's just a smart-ass, attention-getting, borderline loon. It's all in the eyes of the beholder, laddies and lassies.

 

[ArmedBear]

Well, it would seem to me that reminding people that he didn't shoot anybody would be of more value than some of the knee-jerk condemnations that seem prevalent in this post.

For those with no historical context, Gun Control in America resulted from people shooting other people, not in self defense. As long as it was common for people to carry guns if they wanted or needed them at the time, just like hammers or lunchboxes, there was no call for gun control.

 

[jakemccoy]

The fact is that there is a buffer zone within which the Secret Service is going to shoot you (or take you out somehow) if you're open carrying a gun. That's the point of this entire thread.

Who cares if this guy is standing 10 miles away from where the President is ever going to be? Nobody I hope. I surely don't care. If this guy is standing way outside of the buffer zone, then all of this is media hype and an insignificant discussion.

 

[MisterMike]

Every time this happens, the newsies froth and rant about the evils of it, and yet at the same time are clearly exposing the simple fact that NOTHING BAD HAPPENED.

And certainly I'm glad for that. I don't see it the way you do, though. I'm repeating myself, but my concern is that this sort of display leads to the inescapable conclusion in the eyes of many that "something has to be done." What matters is not our perception of how this plays out ("Nothing bad happened," proving that no one need fear bad things happening) versus a perception that antis--and, I'd venture, a few neutrals harbor--"Nothing bad happened . . . but it's just a matter of time, as long as we allow this sort of thing to occur."

In saying this, I'm mindful of the tepid support that the Supreme Court has voiced for an individual RKBA, noting quite clearly that it is subject to "reasonable" limits. I can see the very clear possibility of this leading to legal limitations on RKBA around government officials, couched as "reasonable" measures to protect our political system.

One contrary point I'd concede though, is that sometimes engaging in "weird" behavior ultimately leads to social acceptance. It happened with the gay rights movement--many of us were shocked to see public displays of affection between gay men or gay women. Now, decades later, we barely blink an eye when confronted with gay imagery. Maybe that will happen with us . . . I suspect it won't.

 

[bababooey32]

if he wants to why shouldn't he is my question.

If I have to explain...

Good grief. The security of the leader of the free world is incredibly important - no matter who he/she is. To undertake actions meant to antagonize those responsible for providing that security is a BAD IDEA - even if it is technically legal. It's just a bad idea. It sounds like it was handled professionally, but I doubt that is the reaction this guy was looking for. He was hoping for confrontation so that he could FURTHER spout off about his rights. The secret service was smart enough not to give him that opportunity.

Again: Being allowed to do something is not the same as that "something" being a good idea.

When I lived in Santa Monica California it was made clear that pedestrians had the right of way in any crosswalk. Unfortunately some people failed to consider all the avriables (car mass, speed, stopping ability) and would trot out into the crosswalk with cars speeding towards them. Technically legal, but a really bad idea!

 

[ArmedBear]

The fact is that there is a buffer zone within which the Secret Service is going to shoot you (or take you out somehow) if you're open carrying a gun. That's the point of this entire thread.

Only in your mind, jake, if you read through the thread. No wonder I didn't know what your point was.

 

[ArmedBear]

He was hoping for confrontation so that he could FURTHER spout off about his rights. The secret service was smart enough not to give him that opportunity.

Wouldn't want someone to force the government's hand WRT our rights, would we?

It's not like there's a long tradition of doing that in this country, to protect or regain civil rights, or anything like that...

Just get in the back of the bus, and shut up. That's the ticket.

 

[jakemccoy]

ArmedBear, take a pic of you standing right outside your property line with your rifle. It's way outside the buffer zone of the President. You didn't do anything special. Nobody cares.

You seem to be getting hyped up about this guy without knowing his proximity to the President. In contrast, I need a bit more information.

 

[ny32182]

Do they show how close the guy actually got to the President? I've little doubt that if he got to any point within 1000 yards and a clear line of fire, the SS would have ventilated him. He isn't going to walk up to the president with a firearm. It just isn't going to happen. So, knowing the media, I'm guessing the following is closer to the truth:

-The guy was probably WAY WAY far away from the speaking platform, at some area designated for protestors.

-The guy is making a political statement by carrying the rifle. Heck, I like and agree with the statement he is making. However, any time the media can say "guy showed up at a PRESIDENTIAL EVENT WITH A SNIPER ASSAULT BABY KILLING MACHINE GUN RIFLE!!!", the vast majority of people will picture a nutjob three feet from the Prez, just itching to assassinate their beloved savior. He looks like a loon to 99% of the population, period, and the media presentation will help make sure of it. While I appreciate what he was trying say, and agree with him, I don't think this is the best forum for expressing that view.

 

[nwilliams]

delete

 

[poco loco]

huffpo sucks but as one of them left libertarians,

I can't quite call myself a liberal just due to the way the word is used by and the policies espoused by most "liberals" (though to be honest supporting the entire Bill of Rights should be a liberal position) I am a proud kossak who works regularly trying educate my fellow leftists.

There are a lot more pro RKBA left wingers than most seem to realize. Every thread about gun control on Kos tends to get beaten down with evidence from a good number of other kossaks.

Of course there are the rabid antis also but they tend to be outnumbered by the combined gun owners and those who even though they personally don't like or own, believe as I do that the Bill of Rights was implemented for good cause and all should be defended.

That's my biggest beef with the ACLU is they ignore abuses of the 2nd.

This incident has some heads exploding as the gentleman in question was black and seems to be on the reform side of the health care debate.

/politics