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

[razorback2003]

Rights

I would bet this guy was a LONG WAYS from the president and could have in no way been a threat to the president or his immediate travel group. The president's car may have even pulled up inside this convention center...so no exposure from the outside...who knows. The secret service and other agencies are doing an excellant job. There is no need for creating 'gun free circles' around the president because there is already a gun free area when you go into a convention center where the president speaks. You consent yourself to search/emptying pockets by entering XYZ Convention Center to hear Obama speak....not by being on say the public street. I wouldn't personally protest on the street with a rifle in plain view...but hey if it is legal...and the guy is not within the screened convention center...who cares??? It is no different than a business or home owner having a rifle in his home across the street from the convention center.

There are honestly no telling how many legally and illegally concealed handguns and other weapons concealed at those type of outdoor protests that none of the reporters get to see....at least you know what is being openly carried. The police agencies are watching more than just the guys with the AR's who are protesting...they watch everything. Someone who wants to do evil intent will not be protesting...I trust secret service snipers have all these events covered inside the buildings and out.

 

[fireman 9731]

Seems to be a recurring theme here... people bringing guns to political events.

Its at least the second time in a few weeks.

Maybe a trend is starting, If people start doing this all the time then hopefully people will see our side of things.

 

[Reid73]

Many Americans used to carry guns in public, and it was not a reason for panic.

True: about 120 years ago. Things have progressed since then. We now have electricity, flush toilets, and law and order.

By normalizing gun ownership and the carrying of firearms again -- as it was for most of our history -- we can return to this.

Does any sane person really want to return to the 'Wild Wild West' and daily gunfights?

 

[nalioth]

assault rifle

automatic rifle

C'mon folks. We should know better than this.

Does any sane person really want to return to the 'Wild Wild West' and daily gunfights?

I think you've been watching too much television.

The "wild wild west" was pretty boring, in reality.

 

[Cosmoline]

I wonder if he carries his AR to the grocery store or Wal Mart. I seriously doubt it.

I've carried into grocery stores many times. Never had a problem. Sometimes if my hands are full I will deposit it behind the counter.

 

[nwilliams]

Quote:
assault rifle
Quote:
automatic rifle
C'mon folks. We should know better than this.

Of course we do. The problem is that the anti's don't.

I think the majority of people going to an Obama rally are not going to be very gun friendly unless they are there to protest. So that means that the majority of the people there are going to see a guy with an AR and automatically think "assault rifle" or "machine gun" and attach a negative connotation to what they see, even if the guy doesn't do anything but stand there.

 

[Tommygunn]

Does any sane person really want to return to the 'Wild Wild West' and daily gunfights?

You've been watching too many reruns of "Gunsmoke." In the real west there really weren't very many gunfights -- and there was never any "showdowns" at twelve noon. Comparing Dodge City's most violent era, to the average number of murders in Washington D.C. every year tends to dispel many TV borne myths ....

 

[Lone_Gunman]

You have carried an AR into the grocery store?

 

[ArmedBear]

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.

Nope.

I was responding to all the people here whose instant response was to condemn him.

If you need more information about how far he was from the President, perhaps you can find that out. Again, Google is readily available.

Didn't see you asking that question before, anyway. Not one of your posts seems to follow the previous one.

You want to condemn someone who carries, whether or not you're making any sense. That's your right. But it is what it is.

 

[21bubba]

Anybody stopped and thought that this might be stunt by the anti's to stir the pot so to speak? Two guys, two weeks, makes me wonder.

 

[CoRoMo]

Many Americans used to carry guns in public, and it was not a reason for panic.

Posted by Reid73
True: about 120 years ago. Things have [strike]progressed[/strike] retrogressed since then.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Cougfan2]

huffpo sucks but as one of them left libertarians

I specifically chose the word Leftist rather than liberal because I lean more libertarian myself. Didn't wish to offend, but I guess you and I define Leftist differently.

At least we can probably agree on what the definition of "is" is.

 

[rbernie]

Let's recall that there was little-to-no gun control prior to 1968. So who wants to take a swing at defending the notion that gun control has ANYTHING to do with Presidential security (or anything else in this thread), when more Presidents have been shot in the forty one years since 1968 than were shot in the preceding forty one years?

 

[ArmedBear]

Does any sane person really want to return to the 'Wild Wild West' and daily gunfights?

That's a myth. There weren't daily gunfights. I like Sergio Leone as much as anyone, but learn some history.

Sarah Brady equates carrying firearms with "daily gunfights". Of course, this is not the case, since in many places, people do carry everywhere and daily, without the gunfights in question, right now, in 2009.

Why do you repeat Brady Bunch propaganda? Where's the critical thinking here?

 

[JWF III]

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.

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.

And ya'll have proof of this? How?

Sure he was being watched. But a rifle, whether it was an AR or a Red-Ryder, slung over the shoulder is no threat.

If the SS had shot this man, 500 yards from the pres. with the gun slung over his shoulder, there would be extreme legal ramifications. That's called murder, anyway you cut it.

Ya'lls attitudes suggest that if this guy had been a mile away, with a Barrett, aimed towards the pres., he wouldn't have been a threat. The SS is a highly trained organization. They know how to spot a threat that is worth dealing with. A gun over the shoulder might raise them to condition yellow. And warrant attention. It in no way warrants murder.

Wyman

 

[jakemccoy]

You want to condemn someone who carries, whether or not you're making any sense. That's your right. But it is what it is.

Being that several people agree with me, I guess I make sense to those people. Or maybe we're dumb, and you're the smart one.

Didn't see you asking that question before, anyway. Not one of your posts seems to follow the previous one.

Your posts don't follow your previous posts either. Hey, we have something in common.

 

[bababooey32]

Wouldn't want someone to force the government's hand WRT our rights, would we?...Just get in the back of the bus, and shut up. That's the ticket.

1) Comparing this guy's actions to those of Rosa Parks is...well...not a good comparison.

2) Nobody's rights were violated, so why do we need to force the government's hand? This showboater was not trying to force the government's hand inorder to preserve some right that is being taken away. He was trying to force the secret service's hand in order to promote himself and rail against something that hasn't happened yet (an attack on our RKBA by Obama). If obama or his admin had made some attempt to suppress our 2A rights, this might make sense.

Protecting your rights by actiong like a 2-year old is not The High Road, nor is it effective. The most effective way for us to PRESERVE our RKBA is to act responsibly, respectfully and intelligently. If the need should arise to have to REGAIN our RKBA, then more "in your face" tactics might be needed. But that time is not yet here. IMHO.

 

[meytind]

I think what this guy did is a positive thing with regards to the RKBA. He showed all those people, including left-leaning CNN that being armed doesn't mean that you're a homicidal maniac and that you are perfectly capable of interacting with the rest of society in a peaceful manner.

To be honest, I think that this guy was less of a danger to the President than any of the guys who weren't openly armed. The fact that his weapon was in the open means that he had a lot of secret service attention focused on him. Had he raised the rifle in anything resembling a threatening manner, he would have been quickly shot and stopped. The guys in jackets could have easily been concealing explosive "suicide-vests" and could have detonated themselves once coming within range of the President.

 

[JWF III]

If the need should arise to have to REGAIN our RKBA,

If you have to regain it, that means you lost it. How are you going to show more force when you have zero?

Wyman

 

[ArmedBear]

There are essentially two kinds of threats to a President's life.

The first is a crazy guy like John Hinckley, Jr. (the guy who shot Reagan to get the attention of Jodie Foster).

The other is a well-planned assassination attempt from some organized enemy (could be foreign or domestic).

I sincerely doubt that, in 2009, the latter would be done with a small-caliber rifle, or any rifle.

The former is a different story, but any of thousands of people could have been Hinckleys with pistols in their pockets. The Secret Service is well aware of, and I'd presume has plans for how to deal with, these threats.

Our job, as RKBA advocates, is to show that 99% of gun owners and carriers are NOT John Hinckley Jr. types, and in fact would probably use our guns to help STOP such an act if we could.

Is this guy's way, the best way to show this? I don't know. I'm not a PR consultant.

However, I do know that instantly condemning him and spewing Bradyesque references to "the Wild West" in the context of legal carrying of firearms, is wrong. Dead wrong.

 

[jakemccoy]

Let's recall that there was little-to-no gun control prior to 1968. So who wants to take a swing at defending the notion that gun control has ANYTHING to do with Presidential security (or anything else in this thread), when more Presidents have been shot in the forty one years since 1968 than were shot in the preceding forty one years?

Much of the gun control of 1968 were a result of the actions of the Black Panthers and other racial tensions. That gun control was largely meant to control the blacks, but it turns out that the gun control of 1968 controls all law abiding citizens. The Black Panthers were known to show up at political events with long guns and do nothing with their long guns. They were making a silent statement that was louder than any words could make. I don't know about you, but in the grand scheme of things that someone can do with a long gun, I see the similarities between the actions of the Black Panthers and the man in this case.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Our job, as RKBA advocates, is to show that 99% of gun owners and carriers are NOT John Hinckley Jr. types, and in fact would probably use our guns to help STOP such an act if we could.

Just shows how effective the Brady Bunch and the mainstream media have been at demonizing firearms when "pro gun" people on THR react like I've seen in this thread.

ArmedBear is on the spot here with this. Most of us, even if we completely disagree with everything Obama stands for, would take up arms in his defense in a heartbeat if need be simply because it would be the right thing to do. Gun owners are not enemies of the state, terrorists, or "fringe" citizens..

Yet all we hear about is the negative side of gun ownership when someone takes one out in public.

I expect that from NPR or MSNBC, but it's sad to see it here.

 

[scndactive]

I believe if all gun owners had the clout this guy has we wouldn't have a mountain of asinine gun laws in the books

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the President at all times.

We can have all kinds of fun with this one.

Correct me if I am wrong. If I am understanding this statement correctly you believe guns should not be around the president because he is a potential target. For whatever reason their may be someone with a gun that wishes to do harm to him.

This is correct, no?

Well if that statement makes sense then so do these:

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the children at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the women at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the clergy at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the officers of law enforcement at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around judges at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around the wealthy at all times.

I personally would not find it harassing or an infringement of rights if there was a "non-firearm" zone around any one that may have pissed someone off at all times.

I could keep going but I think you get the point.

That kind of knee jerk thinking is what got us all the stupid gun law we have.

We have all seen how well ''gun free zones'' have worked in the past.

 

[Erik M]

I'm hoping that we have a town hall in this region soon. My brothers and myself will attend and will open carry.

 

[jakemccoy]

Here's the big hypocrisy that's getting lost in the thread: We're discussing this case as if the man is within a range to the President that actually matters. The man with the gun probably knows he's way outside the range. Meanwhile, he also probably knows that the media will report the story as if the guy is right there near the Presidential motorcade. The guy is making a statement, sorta, but not really.