Man Carrying An Assault Rifle And Pistol Outside Obama Event

[pigeonmeister]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/liv...p?emailed=true

I'd be interested in whether people feel this man was doing a service or a disservice to the pro-gun lobby.

I have to say, this seemed a bit beyond the pale...even in Arizona. I wonder what would have happened if 12 guys wearing turbans had turned up with guns.

Doesn't really make the lives of the secret service any easier...

[Bayou Bum]

I wonder what would have happened if 12 guys wearing turbans had turned up with guns.

Absolutely nothing, especially since they would have been wearing Obama t-shirts.

What's important is that no one was killed, proof that guns don't kill people ...
It is not the legal gun owners you see that you need to worry about, it is the ones you don't see.

I personally like his response to why he was carrying a weapon.


"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

[pigeonmeister]

Yes a man holding automatic weapons insisting upon his right to initiate a violent revolution really warms the cockels of your heart.

[I_luv_saber]

The government has no where near reached a point where armed insurrection is necessary. I agree that it can come to that point... but that's when freedom is no longer able to be exercised and people are oppressed.

.. Which is not the same thing as "I lost the last election, now I'm pissed, let's overthrow th government".

Funny thing about Democracy... you aren't always on the winning side.

Let's remember Obama won an ELECTION. He didn't initiate a coup to get to power, and has not thrown off any checks and balances keeping his position in check. There are 100% no signs that he is abusing his position and authority. Not liking his politics is not reason enough to revolt. Just vote for the next guy, or if you feel that passionately work to get him removed from office with the procedures in place (good luck ).


The guy toting the assault rifle was a douchebag that only perpetuates the stereotype that any and all gun rights advocated must be gun nuts.

[noodle]

interesting how the last administration had "free speech zones" at presidential events , and if you drove to the event with a liberal bumper sticker on your car, you'd be whisked away from the event by the secret service into one of these zones. (literally, will produce article on request).

and this administration is apparently okay for people to show up to the main event with loaded weapons and signs that promote the idea of violent governmental revolutions.

[erooMynohtnA]

It is not the legal gun owners you see that you need to worry about, it is the ones you don't see.

Of course, I'm sure if this man, a stranger, were to show up outside your 4th of July BBQ with a loaded semiautomatic rifle and a pistol in plain view, you'd welcome him inside.

Do everyone a favor. If you're not actually excited about it happening to you, don't act like it's a great thing.

Yes a man holding automatic weapons insisting upon his right to initiate a violent revolution really warms the cockels of your heart.

I'm torn.

On the one hand, I want to urge harsher treatment of dissenting conservatives, citing the Bush years. That would feel pretty good.

On the other hand, I think we have to get back to the American dream of letting the crazies be as crazy as they want. Gun nuts, abortion nuts, drug nuts, libertarian nuts, and radical nuts. I think this is just one more example of Obama's administration trying to fix King George's rule.

[Philistine]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/liv...p?emailed=true

I'd be interested in whether people feel this man was doing a service or a disservice to the pro-gun lobby.
{snip}

Hard to say. Probably overall not a net benefit--though I doubt this one incident in and of itself means much of anything.

Probably did provide some educations to Arizonians on how broad open carry laws are--though again, I'm not really sure that is something that is necessarily beneficial to the "pro-gun" lobby.

Doesn't really make the lives of the secret service any easier...

The ones openly carrying the guns are the easy ones.... Though I'm sure it ratcheted up the anxiety level pretty high.

I'd think this guy--and pretty much anyone doing something similar is going to get their life examined with a microscope by the SS.

Yes a man holding automatic weapons insisting upon his right to initiate a violent revolution really warms the cockels of your heart.

This guy wasn't advocating anything. (You may be confusing him with the guy in New Hampshire who last week had a gun in a visible ankle holster and a sign saying "It Is Time to Water the Tree of Liberty."

There's no indication that the guy was either a supporter or opponent of Obama. FWIW (which is not a whole lot), he was black.

{snip}Do everyone a favor. If you're not actually excited about it happening to you, don't act like it's a great thing.
{snip}

But there's a lot of things people do in exercising their rights that are intentially done to make others uncomfortable. From things like Maplethorpe's "Piss Christ", to Gay Pride parades to burning a flag to College Republicans' Affirmative Action Bake sales.

The fact that you might think the freedom to do these kinds of things is good doesn't necessarily mean you agree with either the message itself or the method.

--Philistine

[prototoast]

If Obama is allowed to have guns to protect him from the crowds, the crowds should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves from Obama.

[Hauptman]

My understanding is that no one would be allowed to enter the venue armed like that. As long as they wanted to stay outside the perimiter they would be watched, but not hindered.

As far as I know this is the same standard used when Bush was in office. However when the secret service didn't allow guns near Bush it hardly made a ripple of protest or news time. But I do remember it being mentioned briefly in the news at the time.

[Purple Fencer]

Sorry...but legal or not (which it is in the states where it happened), walking anywhere near a sitting president while carrying a firearm...especially, in the AZ case, an AR-15 (the civvie version of the M-16)...is just dumb.

Sure you can make your point....but if you draw the attention of people who are trained and willing to take a bullet for the Boss (witness the Regan shooing), you're really not making your point...you just look like a right-wing whack job...especially if you're also carrying signage that could easily be taken as a threat to the pres.

[lindajdunn]

While I certainly don't want a return to pre-screening those allowed at town meetings, I do think that if we can ban cigarettes we should be able to ban automatic weapons within X number of feet of the attendees with X representing the firing range of the weapon.

I think that this will generate some negative PR for gun rights as it's going to convince many people that laws should be changed to prohibit people from carrying assault weapons to a town hall meeting.

[erooMynohtnA]

But there's a lot of things people do in exercising their rights that are intentially done to make others uncomfortable. From things like Maplethorpe's "Piss Christ", to Gay Pride parades to burning a flag to College Republicans' Affirmative Action Bake sales.

The fact that you might think the freedom to do these kinds of things is good doesn't necessarily mean you agree with either the message itself or the method.

--Philistine

Mapplethorpe has been exhibited with Piss Christ, but Piss Christ was Andres Serrano.

Anyway, I don't think my point was clear.

I am glad the guy did this. It draws attention to legal issues and demonstrates the legal limits for publicly displaying a weapon. I think this is a politically enlightening thing to happen. It will result in discussion, which is good for democracy.

What I don't like is the schadenfreude from those who wouldn't like the same thing done in their backyard, but laud it as a positive good instead of a necessary evil when done to someone they don't like.

[Gav]

D'you know something. I thought this was going to be a joke.


A man walks into an Obama convention carrying an AK...

[pigeonmeister]

Interesting points.

Where does the law stand on armed groups congregating in public.

For example, would 100 people armed with M16s (possibly wearing faux military uniforms) have been tolerated in this case?

What about 1000?

There is a case against letting this man walk around with a gun simply because of the drain it placed on the security services/police- two officers had to escort him throughout. Then again, are we to ban all protest simply because of the drain on police resources?

I assume that this man had live ammo with him? I also assume that they would have asked for his license?

The basic question is, would Arizona's lax gun laws have survived a) this man opening up and killing people b) trying to open up and being immediately shot dead by the snipers who were almost certainly following his every move?

My other major concern would be that, even if this man was not a nutcase, what would stop someone else grabbing his gun and mowing people down?

All in all, I can't come to any other conclusion than this being insane. I'm not convinced that a basically unrestricted armed society is a laudable benchmark of any state's commitment to individual liberty.

Has Obama commented, or is he sensible enough to not touch this with a 10 foot barge pole? Then again, maybe he will be having beers with the chap in the White House soon...

[lindajdunn]

What would have happened if 12 fencers had shown up in full gear and proceeded to have a dry competition outside a town hall event?

[counterattack]

In Arizona he wouldn't have been able to mow people down. That only happens when the only person armed is the lunatic. In Arizona he might get a shot or two off before he was shot.

Look, if he tried to go into the event they were going to stop him. If he took aim at someone outside they were going to stop him. Nobody is saying that you can threaten the president or anyone else. The facts are that what he did is legal in Arizona, should be legal in Arizona, and should be legal in every other state. The citizens have are supposed to have the right to be armed with weapons powerful enough to fight their own government. But if you start to fight the government, the government doesn't have to let you. No one was advocating the overthrow of the government. They were advocating the right to bear arms. Which THEY ARE CLEARLY RIGHT to think is under threat. It is under threat. Lots of people are trying to severely limit it or remove it, like we were some sort of Europeans who allow their governments to disarm them.

-ph

[erooMynohtnA]

Interesting points.

Where does the law stand on armed groups congregating in public.

For example, would 100 people armed with M16s (possibly wearing faux military uniforms) have been tolerated in this case?

What about 1000?

There is a case against letting this man walk around with a gun simply because of the drain it placed on the security services/police- two officers had to escort him throughout. Then again, are we to ban all protest simply because of the drain on police resources?

I assume that this man had live ammo with him? I also assume that they would have asked for his license?

The basic question is, would Arizona's lax gun laws have survived a) this man opening up and killing people b) trying to open up and being immediately shot dead by the snipers who were almost certainly following his every move?

My other major concern would be that, even if this man was not a nutcase, what would stop someone else grabbing his gun and mowing people down?

All in all, I can't come to any other conclusion than this being insane. I'm not convinced that a basically unrestricted armed society is a laudable benchmark of any state's commitment to individual liberty.

Has Obama commented, or is he sensible enough to not touch this with a 10 foot barge pole? Then again, maybe he will be having beers with the chap in the White House soon...

I'm not familiar with Arizona law, but I'm pretty sure you don't need a permit to own or display an AR-15, which is just about the same as any other semiautomatic rifle, but looks meaner. I don't know if he had any bullets, but the magazine was in the weapon.

In Arizona he wouldn't have been able to mow people down. That only happens when the only person armed is the lunatic. In Arizona he might get a shot or two off before he was shot.

Look, if he tried to go into the event they were going to stop him. If he took aim at someone outside they were going to stop him. Nobody is saying that you can threaten the president or anyone else. The facts are that what he did is legal in Arizona, should be legal in Arizona, and should be legal in every other state. The citizens have are supposed to have the right to be armed with weapons powerful enough to fight their own government. But if you start to fight the government, the government doesn't have to let you. No one was advocating the overthrow of the government. They were advocating the right to bear arms. Which THEY ARE CLEARLY RIGHT to think is under threat. It is under threat. Lots of people are trying to severely limit it or remove it, like we were some sort of Europeans who allow their governments to disarm them.

-ph

I am interested in cases where a person armed with a firearm and intent on killing a number of people has been stopped by a person armed similarly, because I think that as long as I could make the first move, even surrounded by police officers, I would be able to get off more than one or two shots.

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE]

In Arizona he might get a shot or two off before he was shot.

Fine, so he might have only been able to kill one or two people- no problem then.

The facts are that what he did is legal in Arizona, should be legal in Arizona, and should be legal in every other state.

Actually, only one of those is a fact. It's also not a fact anyone is disputing.

The citizens have are supposed to have the right to be armed with weapons powerful enough to fight their own government. But if you start to fight the government, the government doesn't have to let you.

Better start hording helicopter gunships and predator drones.

Lots of people are trying to severely limit it or remove it, like we were some sort of Europeans who allow their governments to disarm them.

Not really convinced that I'm in more danger of my government turning into a totalitarian dictatorship because I can't wave an M16 outside Parliament. But we all have our own opinions and there is little point re-tracing them.

My point was, if the right to bear arms is under threat, has this man done a service or disservice for the pro-gun lobby? More hypothetically speaking, had this man got himself shot, or someone had grabbed his gun and shot others, would Arizona's gun laws endure as they are?

[Purple Fencer]

I'm not familiar with Arizona law, but I'm pretty sure you don't need a permit to own or display an AR-15, which is just about the same as any other semiautomatic rifle, but looks meaner. I don't know if he had any bullets, but the magazine was in the weapon.

[

Good point...if there's a mag in the weapon, authorities MUST PRESUME it's loaded....even to the point of presuming there's a round in the chamber. Stupid to presume otherwise....especially with a high powered rifle.

I am interested in cases where a person armed with a firearm and intent on killing a number of people has been stopped by a person armed similarly, because I think that as long as I could make the first move, even surrounded by police officers, I would be able to get off more than one or two shots.

Another good point, as authorities can't just cut you down unless you display aggressive behavior....and if you just intend to "spray and pray," that doesn't leave the cops a lot of time to respond, particularly if the shooter has civvies around him for cover....the cops aren't going to shoot civvies out of the way to make room to get you.

The major fallicy of the "we're all safer is we all carry guns" argument is what percentage of people are going to have the training to seek cover, calmly line up the sights, and squeeze off a round. Even cops and the military,who get a LOT of training, tend to empty the mag until their target drops (although military shooters might shoot fewer rounds).

More likely if one of these guys at the rallys drew and pointed a weapon and someone responded, innocents would get killed.

It may be making a political point to openly carry weapons in a state where it's legal to do so.....but it's freakin' stupid to do so. No one's going to listen to your point -- no matter how pertinent -- if you come across as a nut-job.

[Purple Fencer]

[QUOTE=pigeonmeister;818281]

My point was, if the right to bear arms is under threat, has this man done a service or disservice for the pro-gun lobby? More hypothetically speaking, had this man got himself shot, or someone had grabbed his gun and shot others, would Arizona's gun laws endure as they are?

A disservice....see the end of my previous post.

As for your scenario...the gun laws would change with lightning speed...as such a happening would be taken as proof of the need for such control....