NH - Man Open Carries At Obama's Speech!

[Superlite27]

We can reputedly thank this armed protest, in part, for the sweeping Gun Control Act passed one year later (the GCA '68).

This is the reason I wouldn't advocate OC'ing at political events as helping our cause.

It has become cliche, but this guy has probably "frightened the sheeple".

Even though they are sheeple, when they cry loud enough, legislators will appease them. Whether what they're crying about makes logical sense or not.

Therefore, while this guy meant well, he is not a BG as some here claim. But I won't agree with his choice to OC. Not because he's a BG, but because he's frightening the stupid sheeple. Possibly leading to what rbernie has pointed out: more ignorance like the GCA.

 

[rbernie]

I edited my post to make my point clearer:

My point is that this instance is an example of how to do it properly, in that he refrained from any overt threats in his actions while still presenting himself as a supporter of the RKBA.

It would be very difficult to portray his actions as threatening in any way.

 

[Demitrios]

A lot of people are viewing this in terms of legal remifications for gun owners, however I like to view this from a bit of a different angle. In this case who is the patriot and who is the tyrant? I like to believe the tyrant is more symbolic in our loss of our rights while the patriot would be this gentleman, who will probably pay a heavy price in some way or other for his actions which were completely peacful and legal. I'd like to thank William Kostric for putting his freedom on the line to exercise not only his but all of our rights. And I'd also like to thank him for being as well-spoken and composed under such rapid fire questioning.

 

[jakemccoy]

geniusiknowit,

This is what you said:

Not sure how watering a tree is equatable to spreading manure around it. For those unfamiliar, manure and water are not the same thing, so it could be argued he's not really referencing the Jefferson quote.

The response to that is "Incorrect". You can't argue he was not really referencing the Jefferson quote. The man admits on Hardball that he was referencing the Jefferson quote. Evidence doesn't get much clearer than an express admission. Keep it simple, man.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

His message was very clear to me as well. The Secret Service needs to scrutinize him closely. Anyone want to bet he gets audited by the IRS next year?

 

[jakemccoy]

The man shouldn't be persecuted for referencing the Jefferson quote. The sign's message, which was not an exact quote, was just a metaphor. I thought the use of the sign was a poor judgment call, but the man shouldn't be persecuted for having merely poor judgment.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Yes, but the metaphor was assassination or at least armed rebellion.

Both activities are illegal.

I agree that the sign was poor judgement, and don't think being questioned by the Secret Service would be persecution.

 

[Lou McGopher]

The response to that is "Incorrect". You can't argue he was not really referencing the Jefferson quote. The man admits on Hardball that he was referencing the Jefferson quote. Evidence doesn't get much clearer than an express admission. Keep it simple, man.

Right, but the Secret Service or anyone else there couldn't know what he was going to say later on Hardball.

 

[jakemccoy]

Yes, but the metaphor was assassination or at least armed rebellion.

The connection to assassination is not that direct. You have to make at least two assumptions before you get to the sign being a metaphor for assassination. We can toss around assumptions all day for anybody at a public event.

Right, but the Secret Service or anyone else there couldn't know what he was going to say later on Hardball.

Yes, but I'm looking at this case as if the Attorney General is considering the evidence in present real time.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The connection is not that direct. You have to make at least two assumptions before you get to the sign being an assassination threat.

Sorting out real threats from harmless people with poor judgement is what the Secret Service is for.

He does not appear to have broken any laws, nor does he appear to be a real threat. But if someone shows up with a gun and a sign that could reasonably be interpretted to be a threat, then it is the duty of the Secret Service to investigate. That is really all I am saying.

 

[atomd]

Making that quote while carrying a firearm at a presidential event is asking for trouble.

Doing something while legally carrying a firearm anywhere is no different than doing something without legally carrying a firearm.

His message was very clear to me as well. The Secret Service needs to scrutinize him closely.

Wow, fan of big brother are you? It's obvious he didn't threaten anyone or do anything illegal...or else he would have been arrested. He was exercising his first and second amendment rights. Someone here actually has a problem with that?

Maybe anyone seen in a "Vote from the rooftops" t-shirt should be detained and investigated too. Same with anyone waving a gadsden flag....or wearing a "Ron Paul 08" button. How about the militia members? Or the Minutemen? What about you...or me? :banghead:

 

[Lou McGopher]

Yes, but I'm looking at it as if the Attorney General is considering this case in present real time.

And from that angle, I'd agree with you. I was referring to how he should have been perceived at the time of his actions.

Yes, but the metaphor was assassination

It has nothing to do with assassination, unless you count the four rebels who were shot and killed initial the initial skirmish (no one else was killed). The rebels were shutting down courts, not killing people.

Both activities are illegal.

It's generally legal to advocate illegal activity.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

It's obvious he didn't threaten anyone or do anything illegal...or else he would have been arrested. He was exercising his first and second amendment rights. Someone here actually has a problem with that?

There is no way to know if someone with a gun (or any other dangerous object) who shows up at a presidential event is a threat or not until he is investigated by the Secret Service. That is what the Secret Service is for. The fact that he was not arrested does not mean he was not suspicious and worthy of Secret Service scrutiny. He broke no laws, and ends up not being a threat. But I would expect the Secret Service to make sure he is not a threat. So everything worked like it should have.

Whats the problem?

It has nothing to do with assassination, unless you count the four rebels who were shot and killed initial the initial skirmish (no one else was killed). The rebels were shutting down courts, not killing people.

I dont remember this guy saying anything about shutting down courts. He did not use the quote in the context of the Shays Rebellion, or the courts. You can beat around the bush all you want, but his message was clear. He just wasn't serious. After all, he had a gun, and he wanted to water the tree of liberty....

 

[jakemccoy]

I wish the man had been open carrying while his sign had a message about health care. The issues are getting convoluted because of the sign. If the sign had to do with health care, then the debates would be focused on carrying at Presidential events. That's an important discussion.

 

[TravisB]

If he'd carried a sign saying, "It's time for blood to flow, and I have a gun," he would have likely been arrested.

He managed to say exactly that without getting arrested.

Very savvy guy. And he handled himself extremely well with Chris Matthews, who came off as a raging maniac who angrily demanded that Kostric answer his questions while not giving Kostric a chance to answer.

If the sign + gun was a knowing over-the-top stunt designed to get himself interviewed on TV (where he knew he would be calm and articulate), than it was all well done, from a media-tactics standpoint.

But if an unintended side effect becomes a trend of open-carry by protesters -- both demonstrators and counter-demonstrators, facing off angrily in the street -- well, yikes.

 

[Yo Mama]

This is the reason I wouldn't advocate OC'ing at political events as helping our cause.

It has become cliche, but this guy has probably "frightened the sheeple".

Who cares about the sheeple. Maybe they need to see what real men and women are like.

Gun control only came to signal you better not question authority or else. It always happens. They should have kept demonstrating and kept demonstrating and kept demonstrating. Maybe if they did, we would have to work so hard to regain lost ground.

The 2nd is a right. It's not a priveledge, legal jargon, or suggestion. It's a right. Society became this way because we were to scared to stand up for our rights, God given to us.

 

[atomd]

There is no way to know if someone with a gun (or any other dangerous object) who shows up at a presidential event is a threat or not until he is investigated by the Secret Service. That is what the Secret Service is for.

You were suggesting that they need to scrutinize him (present tense). That would mean that he would be harassed by them after the fact....when I don't believe he did anything threatening to begin with. Why should you be harassed by the secret service if you didn't do anything wrong in the first place?

By suggesting he needs to be investigated you are suggesting he did something wrong. That's what I'm getting at.

 

[Erik M]

There is no way to know if someone with a gun (or any other dangerous object) who shows up at a presidential event is a threat or not until he is investigated by the Secret Service. That is what the Secret Service is for.
Whats the problem?

I dont think they care much for on the spot investigations. It may be my skepticisim acting up but I think the Secret Service subscribes to "guy with a gun, protect the president at all costs", shoot first, ask questions later ect.


I agree that what the man was doing was completely within his rights. Would I take a loaded weapon around any politician? Im sorry Johnny, I have to say no. I dont want to see what the federal agent is hiding behind door number 3.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

You were suggesting that they need to scrutinize him (present tense).

Yes, present tense. He needs to be scrutinized. He came with a sign that in the context used, implies killing elected politicians. The gun is not important in that regard.

So the Secret Service needs to investigate and determine if he is a harmless political protestor with no sense of judgement or if he is a real threat. If he is not a threat, and has not violated the law, then the investigation ends, and they quit messing with him.

 

[scndactive]

While I agree that this individuals actions may be looked upon negatively by opponents of the 2nd, I believe if we could come together on this it could become a movement.

Omg!!! man with a gun shows up at town hall meeting.

Then 3 people show up oc'ing at the next meeting. Then 10 at the next, and 30, 40, or 50 at the next.

 

[lanternlad1]

His message was very clear to me as well. The Secret Service needs to scrutinize him closely.

Ironic that someone with the handle of "Lone Gunman" (ref to the JFK assassination) who lists his location as "The United Socialist States of Obama" would be calling for Secret Service scrutiny. For someone so against Obama, you certainly seem concerned about his safety... It's hard to figure out what side you're on.

What's that? I'm misinterpreting the facts? I don't know anything about you so how could I jump to conclusions like that? Imagine that.

This man wore a gun and held a sign. THAT'S ALL. There WAS NO INTENT. He didn't touch the gun, he didn't make a big raving spectacle of himself, nothing at all out of the ordinary was done.

I want all of you to think about this from a different angle.

Q: IF this man was out to assassinate Obama, WHY WOULD HE CARRY OPENLY?!
A: HE WOULDN'T. He'd turn himself into a giant target and be the FIRST one suspected of such an action. Any smart assassin tries to keep things quiet and low-key. Strutting around on national TV with a gun on your hip is NOT low-key. You can bet that after the police checked him out, they gave his info to the SS who ran a background check on him. I'm betting that checked out too.

Seriously people, be logical about things.

 

[TravisB]

"Then 3 people show up oc'ing at the next meeting. Then 10 at the next, and 30, 40, or 50 at the next."

Legislation by intimidation. Now that's democracy!

 

[Lou McGopher]

I dont remember this guy saying anything about shutting down courts.

Do you remember him saying anything about killing someone?

He did not use the quote in the context of the Shays Rebellion, or the courts.

Then he used the quote out of context.

You can beat around the bush all you want, but his message was clear. He just wasn't serious. After all, he had a gun, and he wanted to water the tree of liberty....

The only thing that was clear at the time is that he had a gun and he thought the tree of liberty should be watered. At no time did he display any violent intentions or thoughts.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Do you remember him saying anything about killing someone?

Thomas Jefferson was not talking about watering plants. He was talking about killing people.

The only thing that was clear at the time is that he had a gun and he thought the tree of liberty should be watered.

Now that is funny! You really think he wants to water plants!

The gun is less disturbing that the sign.

 

[Mr_Rogers]

I would think that the lessons from Lincoln to JFK would justify that guns at Presidential functions be treated with suspicion. Yes, we all know about inalienable rights, patriotism, protection against tyranny - all very good stuff. However, bearing history in mind, the choice to turn up armed at a Presidential event can not be seen as anything other than either provocative or foolhardy depending upon your viewpoint.

Were this man's actions intended to be provocative? Surely.
Were they foolhardy, probably not to someone who gets drunk in a Zoo and throws empty beer-cans at the tigers.

Hey, you make your choices and stand your stand but once you make your choice you live with the consequences. Heads of State have never in history been treated like normal people, even the best of them have been subject to hate and violence and they have often times been surrounded by bodyguards who are expected above all other things, to guard the boss's body. If you want to put yourself in a position where one little misinterpretation ends up with you weighing 55 grains or so extra - your choice.