NH - Man Open Carries At Obama's Speech!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Mr Rogers is correct.

Like I have said, he had a right to carry a gun. He hasn't been charged with a crime. Other than being investigated, no harm will come to him.

But the American people also have the right to not have the political process subverted by an assassin. That is why the SS should investigate.
 
Thomas Jefferson was not talking about watering plants. He was talking about killing people.
Click to expand...

Sir, I invite you to follow the link I posted above and read Mr. Jefferson's entire letter. Nowhere does Jefferson say people should go out and kill elected officials, which is what you are saying this man's sign advocated.
 
Last edited:
Sir, I invite you to follow the link I posted above and read Mr. Jefferson's entire letter.
Click to expand...

Hardly necessary. The sentence IMMEDIATELY PRIOR to the one alluded to by this man is:

What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?
Click to expand...

To deny that the man was using the allusion--whatever Jefferson meant to say about Shay's rebellion--to hint at killing Barak Obama is pure obfuscation.
 
To deny that the man was using the allusion--whatever Jefferson meant to say about Shay's rebellion--to hint at killing Barak Obama is pure obfuscation.
Click to expand...

Prior to the man's appearance on Hardball, it would have been far more reasonable to infer that the man was hinting at wanting Obama to quash a rebellion, such was the ambiguity of this man's sign.

To witness that man with his sign and assume he wanted someone to kill Obama is to imagine too much.
 
Please understand my comment does not apply to the present event - it applies to my interpretation of the Jeffersonian saying and the use of force to defend freedom in general.

There is a difference between a single individual attempting assassination because he does not accept the results of a democratic election and a band of patriots choosing to fight when it is clear that no other action can maintain their freedom.

The first case is dealt with initially at the ballot box. Only when "democracy" is clearly subverted at the ballot box, or subverted by the suspension of the ballot completely, is the Jeffersonian "watering" justified.

My own feeling is that the sign of the man in NH was ludicrously melodramatic.
 
To witness that man with his sign and assume he wanted someone to kill Obama is to imagine too much.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, I don't think most people see it your way.
Click to expand...

To take that as some sort of threat against Obama requires one to completely misconstrue what Jefferson said. You're taking "the tree of liberty" from the man's sign, matching it up to the same phrase in Jefferson's letter, and then cherry-pick a few other words from the letter and use them completely out of context.

As lanternlad1 said, are we to assume by your username, stated location, and signature that you are threatening to assassinate the president?

Let's not jump to inaccurate conclusions regarding someone's speech the same way antis jump to conclusions about the ownership and possession of firearms.

And with that said, I'm off to have some beer and brats. Been nice chatting with ya.
 
What was interesting to me about the Hardball interview was that Matthews began the interview thinking he would goad and bully Kostric into coming across as a scary psycho right-wing gun-nut.

It blew up in his face when Kostric was articulate, intelligent, well-informed and a persuasive advocate for limited government and both the 1st and 2nd amendments.

At that point Matthews couldn't bail out fast enough. :rolleyes:

Tinpig
 
Winners:
Local police
Barack Obama
Thomas Jefferson
People who make Gadsden Flags

Losers:
Chris Mathews
Kostric's stylist
 
I personally think the man was wrong to show up at an event where the president was in attendance armed and more so for being armed and carrying a sign/banner that could be taken as threatening. I liken it to taunting the fire dept as they try to save your house from burning. Having said that, his voice was ultimately louder than any other at that town hall meeting. It was ballsy and IMO stupid but it earned him his 15 min.
 
Anyone who thinks that this is a unique approach should go back and research the Black Panthers and their interactions with the California State Legislature on/about May 2nd, 1967. We can reputedly thank this armed protest, in part, for the sweeping Gun Control Act passed
Click to expand...


It is the same issue. The blacks marching with firearms resulted in legislators insuring that was not legal in the future. They passed laws not only in California, but many other places. Oregon for example also passed essentially the same prohibition in response to the California armed demonstration.

It is now a major crime to protest or strike while armed. For everyone, even police.
It became illegal to have firearms at the Capitol building, the Governors mansion, and numerous state government buildings.
Open carry of loaded weapons suddenly became restricted. Both long guns and handguns previously being open carried freely in the state.



It was all in response to the exact type of actions taken by this guy with his sign.
They intentionally scared the legislators with guns, and the legislators made the ability to scare them with guns in the future illegal. While crushing the prior freedoms of their citizens.
 
I'm sorry but i see this as no more than a very well coreographed event for someone benefit.
Personally i hope that a s.s. sniper did have a lock on this guy the whole time.I know he did nothing illegal, i know he was within his rights, but to believe that he wasn't grandstanding is foolish.
I don't like the idea of someone using my second ammendment right to be used as a theater prop hoping that it gets them their 15 minutes.
 
In a past life, I spent a lot of time (seven years?) around/in proximity to/hanging out with both the protective detail agents and the uniformed division officers of the Secret Service. I can absolutely guarantee you that if they thought that this individual was in any fashion a potential threat - they would have acted. Those folk just do NOT mess around. Great folk, and they are seriously funny when off-duty, but scary deadly serious when on the job.

The fact that he was unmolested tells me that he was adjudicated to NOT be a threat. I do not grok why we keep feeling the need to spin it into something that it was not...
 
It's threads like these that make me worry about the future, not only in terms of gun rights, but individual freedom and liberty in general.

If half of supposed second amendment supporters don't get it, how can we expect everyone else to?
 
The fact that he was unmolested tells me that he was adjudicated to NOT be a threat.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the point I am making is that he was most likely adjudicated NOT to be a threat.

Maybe he got no where near the president (most likely).

Or maybe they talked to him and determined things were OK.

But in any case, I doubt the SS said, "oh here is a guy with a gun, what a great supporter of the 2nd Amendment, lets ignore him."
 
Absolutely true. But I have to ask - so what?

I'm sure that I get the stinkeye from Officers of the Law plenty of times. As long as I am legal and not makin' a fuss or otherwise actually/really/I mean really disturbing the peace - I don't expect to get molested nor do I expect to be told by my freedom-loving like-minded compadres that perhaps I shouldn't drive that ugly red car after all.
 
rbernie said:
In a past life, I spent a lot of time (seven years?) around/in proximity to/hanging out with both the protective detail agents and the uniformed division officers of the Secret Service. I can absolutely guarantee you that if they thought that this individual was in any fashion a potential threat - they would have acted. Those folk just do NOT mess around. Great folk, and they are seriously funny when off-duty, but scary deadly serious when on the job.
Click to expand...

In light of the close association you had with the Secret Service, maybe you can shed some light here. What is the specific Code of Federal Regulations the Secret Service operates under, and are you aware of any law that would make it unlawful for a citizen to be armed within a certain proximity to the President or anyone else the Secret Service protects?

I ask because in all my research I can find no set of regulations or law.

If such a proximity to the POTUS while armed law existed, I would imagine that federal law would be superior to any state law and William Kostric could have been moved or disarmed.

Woody

There is a current wave of freedom being expressed in this great country of ours. We can join that wave in the political arena now or be forced to join it on the battlefield later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
NH - Man Open Carries at Obama Speech!!!
Replies
2
Views
1K
rbernie
rbernie
F
  • Locked
Man arrested while Open Carrying at Political Rally
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
4K
NonConformist
N
D
  • Locked
NH: Vid of my latest open carry incident
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Replies
250
Views
21K
Hammerxc
H
P
  • Locked
This seems like a poor idea.......
Replies
3
Views
517
Mal H
Mal H
D
  • Locked
White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events
2 3
Replies
67
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top