Man Carrying An Assault Rifle And Pistol Outside Obama Event

[Philistine]

In other words there are times when your right to protest is considered "not on"...

Yes. The right to protest (and right to free speech) is always subject to reasonable non-content-based restrictions based on time, place and manner. But the restrictions can't be used to prevent any protest at all, or only one side's protest.

{snip}A posse of people openly carrying weapons that scares people away from even entering the meeting has the same effect....just without the noisy shouting part.

I don't see it. People doing something that is perfectly legal and not doing any actual actions that are in the least bit threatening are pretty much, by definition, allowed.

Otherwise, you couldn't have a gathering of bikers, because that might scare someone.

Their mere presence isn't illegal (at least in Arizona). Now if Arizona wants to change its laws, it can (although it's unlikely there, I could see other open carry states deciding to put enact laws in reaction to these incidents)--but until it does, it's just like radical anti-abortionists with posters of aborted fetuses or anti-fur advocates with their posters.

Just because someone feels frightened by the very existence of another person, the way their dressed, or what their carrying, doesn't mean that person must be stopped from doing what he's doing when their is no direct threat or harrassment.

--Philistine

[Gav]

Yes. The right to protest (and right to free speech) is always subject to reasonable non-content-based restrictions based on time, place and manner. But the restrictions can't be used to prevent any protest at all, or only one side's protest.

I was being facetious with my questions.

[I_luv_saber]

Let's put that protest into context and say that it's at the next presidential election. And really loud intimidating protest is stationed outside polling centres for one side only. Is this still ok in your books?

As stated, there are usually laws of some sort defining a certain distance from the polling place one must be. Note that the right to protest has not been taken away, just that it must be X feet away from a place (and when comparing analogies, this was the case of the man with the gun too AFAIK. No guns are allowed within X distance of the Pres, and I wasn't arguing that there should be. So the standard is really the same).

That's what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq (other places too). I think someone else made that point.

I think, if I'm not mistaken, the point was not so much "Boo, that's not good, Iraq and Afghanistan does that" but "If you value Democracy, you aren't going to let a few protesters hold you back". Regardless, the latter was my point.

I must disagree....ANY action that is designed to get in the way of someone exercising their right to vote (to use your example) is wrong...period.

Firstly, we're not talking about voting (I thought), but rather town hall meetings.

Secondly, protesting is NOT blocking your right to vote (I agree that if someone is actually blocking you from voting, that it should be a no-no... your rights stop at the tip of my nose and all that).

You cannot parse it out and blame those who get scared away...the blame falls on those creating the atmosphere of fear....or yo you not blame the Taliban for the low voter turnout in Kabul this week?

That's very disingenuous with a touch of ad hominem to boot. Shame.

This was not an armed terrorist group known for blasting people trying to vote... this was a guy outside of a town hall meeting with a gun (i.e. there was no reason to perceive him as threatening except by the very fact he had a gun). He was exercising his right to be armed. He was not near the President, and AFAIK, was not acting in a threatening manner.

As with the last analogy set up, that is Mr. X wanting to kill someone who does Y, and stating that. Mr. A is approaching doing Y. That is not what happened here. It's a faulty analogy.

It's ludicrous to state that he is responsible for others feeling of intimidation. Where does that stop? Can I not wear biker clothes outside of a meeting for fear of intimidating someone? What about if I'm large and scary looking? Why am I responsible and have to sacrifice my rights because you are intimidated by me?

This is a very, very slippery slope.

A posse of people openly carrying weapons that scares people away from even entering the meeting has the same effect....just without the noisy shouting part.

Was that a vocal intention of theirs? To stop people going to the meetings? Any proof of this? If so then there might be a case. "We want to stop you from going to the meeting" + weapons could be seen as a threat, far more akin to the KKK or Taliban analogy. Just being there - not at all.

And please tell me what the 2nd Amendment has to do with health care reform???

Again, please, please don't think I'm standing behind this guy. I'm not. He was/is a douche for doing it, and I don't get why he did either.

I'm just saying he had the right to do what he did, and he shouldn't have his right taken away because "someone else is intimidated". It's an extremely slippery slope that could justify nearly any massive controls.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

No one seemed to have a problem with protesters at the Republican convention or for President Bush. What good is it to have the freedom to protest only when it doesn't offend someone?

So I guess if this guy had been carrying an AR-15, the Bush boys would have let him stay?

[pigeonmeister]

Clearly you're trolling once again. With the comment about people wearing turbans, you gave away your intent. Religious equivalent of a race baiting.

Yes, clearly I'm a troll Slim.

The world according to Slim really is a fascinating place.

[I_luv_saber]

So I guess if this guy had been carrying an AR-15, the Bush boys would have let him stay?

Yeeeah... good times. Double standards really are awesome things to behold.

[I_luv_saber]

Yes, clearly I'm a troll Slim.

I pictured this as an answer:

[Hauptman]

So I guess if this guy had been carrying an AR-15, the Bush boys would have let him stay?

BB doesn't see the difference between "offending" someone versus obstructing or intimidating someone.

Attending town hall meetings to angrily express your opinion is fine, but not when you're shouting down and intimidating others who disagree with you. If you want to yell your head off then take it outside to your own venue.

Bringing guns to a public meeting with the intent of showing your willingness to use force to get your way over a democratically elected gov't is intimidation pure and simple, and goes far beyond mere freedom of speech. Unless, of course, you take your AR-15 with you everywhere you go... at least you wouldn't be a hypocrite as well. :P

[Philistine]

Yeeeah... good times. Double standards really are awesome things to behold.

To be fair, it happens to Republicans too.

Link:

{June 2000} When fifteen members of the New Black Panther Party brandished AK-47 machine guns as they marched through the streets of downtown Houston Friday, they broke no laws, say Texas media sources. "It is legal in Texas to carry such firearms openly as long as the carrier is not a felon and does not aim the weapon at anyone," reported The Houston Chronicle on Saturday. In the same report the Chronicle said the group "carried shotguns, AK-47s and other rifles."

The heavily armed Panthers were marching on the Texas state GOP convention to protest the execution of convicted murderer Gary Graham, scheduled for next Thursday. They also demanded an end to the death penalty across the country.

Laura Bush, wife of likely GOP presidential nominee George W. Bush, addressed the state convention on Friday, though it's not clear if she was aware of the assault rifle-toting protesters outside.

Of course, it's not particularly uncommon where the carryers are not actualy protesting the convention.

It recently (May 2009) happened at the Virginia State Republican Convention. Link.

And in the summer of 2001 in Utah, "At a recent GOP convention in Utah, participants were allowed to bring their guns but were asked to keep their weapons in storage lockers while Vice President Dick Cheney spoke. Two knives and 25 guns and ammunition clips were checked at the door."

Link

That's just from a quick search.

--Philistine.

[I_luv_saber]

Yeah... both sides seem to have their fair share of hypocrites.

[Purple Fencer]

BB doesn't see the difference between "offending" someone versus obstructing or intimidating someone.

Attending town hall meetings to angrily express you opinion is fine, but not when you're shouting down and intimidating others who disagree with you. If you want to yell your head off then take it outside to your own venue.

Bringing guns to a public meeting with the intent of showing your willingness to use force to get your way over a democratically elected gov't is intimidation pure and simple, and goes far beyond mere freedom of speech. Unless, of course, you take your AR-15 with you everywhere you go... at least you wouldn't be a hypocrit as well. :P

Thank you.

[Phaeton]

Honestly,

If I was at a town hall meeting/polling place/public event being protested and someone had an AR-15 I wouldn't participate as openly if at all. The amount of coercive power an individual has with a firearm is immense, even if this power is only psychological.

I don't understand why anyone would need to have a gun outside of a town hall meeting. I don't understand why the federal government doesn't have the right to declare a gun free area around the president.


What it comes down to appropriateness. It's like brandishing your Kalashnikov when taking your kid to daycare. Not appropriate.

[phillipmj]

participants were allowed to bring their guns but were asked to keep their weapons in storage lockers while Vice President Dick Cheney spoke.

If only they had also required Cheney to check his shotgun at the door wherever *he* went. . .

[Purple Fencer]

[QUOTE=Phaeton;818753]Honestly,

If I was at a town hall meeting/polling place/public event being protested and someone had an AR-15 I wouldn't participate as openly if at all. The amount of coercive power an individual has with a firearm is immense, even if this power is only psychological. [quote]
Again....thank you.

I don't understand why anyone would need to have a gun outside of a town hall meeting. I don't understand why the federal government doesn't have the right to declare a gun free area around the president.

They did....it was inside the building. When the Pres is around it become a federal zone...and state law does not apply. Obama was never in sight of the guys with the guns, nor did they ever attempt to enter the building....but you can bet Secret Service was watching just in case they did.

However, your previous paragraph shows a possible effect on the general populace....

[Slim]

Yes, clearly I'm a troll Slim.

The world according to Slim really is a fascinating place.

Then what was the intent? What compelled you to add the remark about how people wearing turbans would have been treated? Not enough Isreali-bashing going on around here lately?

Stop trying to twist this issue into something its not. You're smarter than that.

[pigeonmeister]

Then what was the intent? What compelled you to add the remark about how people wearing turbans would have been treated? Not enough Isreali-bashing going on around here lately?

Stop trying to twist this issue into something its not. You're smarter than that.

Understanding that the pro-gun spectrum is quite broad (politically, socially and geographically), I wanted to understand better how this guy's actions were perceived. Seems to have happened, so I am glad I did.

Beyond this, I wanted a bit more info on Arizona's gun laws. All of my subsequent follow up questions related to these two issues.

The general stereotype of the 'prise it out my cold dead fingers' pro-gun activist seems to be, and I may well be wrong, of a white American. This case, as several people picked up on, though not myself, challenged this simplistic reading. I hadn't even thought about this line.

Re. the 'Turban' line, I see that it was a possibly provocative point, though not one designed to 'bait' any particular response. It was more designed to draw a response on the notion of possibly 1000s of heavily armed people congregating in one place. Something I feel scary even if they were wearing salvation army uniforms. However, the extent to which this is deemed socially (if not legally) acceptable is, in my view, related to the perception of threat.

I stand by the notion that 1000s of people dressed in traditional Afghan/Pakistan/Palestinian dress heavily armed with semi-automatic weapons in the vicinity of the president would have drawn a much more problematic response. Some people even feel uneasy when Muslims, who obviously don't all wear turbans (more associated with the Sikh faith), start praying on planes.

It was really a peripheral point.

That was my intention. Yours was much more simple: to score anti-liberal points. It is astonishing that you feel my posts= some kind of race bating troll like intention, and then you go on and drop this: "To answer your question though, they probably would have been considered additional security for Obama and invited inside".

Thanks, your contribution to this thread, and fnet in general, is invaluable.

[JackOfHearts]

Some people even feel uneasy when Muslims, who obviously don't all wear turbans (more associated with the Sikh faith), start praying on planes.

I don't know about you, but if I'm in a plane, hundreds of feet in the air, and I see someone, anyone, praying, I'm going to start to feel a little nervous myself.

[thereom4]

I don't know about you, but if I'm in a plane, hundreds of feet in the air, and I see someone, anyone, praying, I'm going to start to feel a little nervous myself.

ha! ha! ha! Why is this funny to me? Well if we ever happen to be on the same plane (this is a small world) don't be worried when you see me praying, I always do.

[JackOfHearts]

ha! ha! ha! Why is this funny to me? Well if we ever happen to be on the same plane (this is a small world) don't be worried when you see me praying, I always do.

I'll be sure to join you then. With enough prayer, perhaps it will stay in the air.

[pigeonmeister]

Especially if preceded by the words "this is your captain speaking"