Gun Packers at Obama Rally Part of Conservative Talk Radio Promo

[Rohirrim]

I guess they weren't "liberal plants" after all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/right-wing-radio-host-sta_n_262559.html

[Bronx33]

They were idiot plants it appears.



http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/055752-2009-08-18-declare-your-independence-with-ernest-hancock-august-18th-2009.htm

[Rohirrim]

Many people just can't seem to get a grasp on the difference between liberty and license.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

They were idiot plants it appears.NRA radicals, right wing parrots, OK, I guess I'll go along with your call. :)

[Bronx33]

NRA radicals, right wing parrots, OK, I guess I'll go along with your call. :)


Iam sure you don't agree with some radical lefties well it goes the other way too :thumbs:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Iam sure you don't agree with some radical lefties well it goes the other way too :thumbs:Yep, most radicals fail miserably in getting their points out there. But definitions of the term differ from one person to another. :yep:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Can you imagine the outcry we would have heard from the right had some lunatic shown up outside a GeeDubya event packing an M-16?

And you know the Secret Service would have smoked the guy before he got within a five mile radius of the boy king.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://bartblog.bartcop.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/cartoon-protest-double-standard.gif

[tnedator]

I guess they weren't "liberal plants" after all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/right-wing-radio-host-sta_n_262559.html

As I posted elsewhere, they were a group of libertarians, that moved back and forth between those for and against the health care bill, and were there for God knows what, I guess to make a statement about individual rights or something, since they didn't appear to be there because of health care.

[cutthemdown]

if its legal to carry a gun then whats the ****ing problem? I guess these gun lovers smart to start the fight now because obviously most don't respect there right to carry a firearm.

[cutthemdown]

obviously they were hoping Obamas people would arrest them. Kudos to them for not giving them that win. Otherwise I don't see what good it did.

[tnedator]

if its legal to carry a gun then whats the ****ing problem? I guess these gun lovers smart to start the fight now because obviously most don't respect there right to carry a firearm.

I am a 'gun lover' and I think it is completely assinine for anyone to open carry a weapon at a town hall event, whether presedential or otherwise -- but, especially a Presidential event.

It might be 'legal', but that doesn't make it smart or right.

As a supporter of the right to own firearms, I believe open carrying at an event like that simply gives the liberal media and bloggers a chance to talk about the right wing wackos with guns. There is no way that doing that helps the cause of gun rights, only hurts it.

[Rohirrim]

Liberty means you exercise more responsibility, not less. These displays were childish.

[tnedator]

These displays were childish.

Agreed

[TailgateNut]

Agreed

I may be labeled a "Liberal" but I also support the right to own guns. I don't hunt, but I do own guns and have used them on occasion, but these dumbasses should have their rights revoked. This isn't 1890 and if it were someone would have shot their dumb asses before they walked in the door. I alway think of those who carry guns for security as being Chicken**** pansies who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, and if confronted would **** in their pants.

[tnedator]

I may be labeled a "Liberal" but I also support the right to own guns. I don't hunt, but I do own guns and have used them on occasion, but these dumbasses should have their rights revoked. This isn't 1890 and if it were someone would have shot their dumb asses before they walked in the door. I alway think of those who carry guns for security as being Chicken**** pansies who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, and if confronted would **** in their pants.

Well, your assertion about 'who' carries guns for security is way off base, but that's a whole nother discussion.

I don't know where you live, but quite a few states have open carry laws and people are legally allowed to wear a holster and carry a pistol everywhere they go. Now, I personally probably wouldn't do it, even if I lived in an open carry state for a number of reasons: calling attention to my gun, risk of it being grabbed by a kid or someone else, etc. However, that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with a person doing so.

Anyway, even if you own a gun, your views of gun ownership and use, are clearly liberal.

[Rigs11]

if its legal to carry a gun then whats the ****ing problem? I guess these gun lovers smart to start the fight now because obviously most don't respect there right to carry a firearm.

Would you take a gun to a school just because you could?Seriously man if you can't see what's wrong with this you are seriously brainwashed. it puts the president at risk.

[tnedator]

Would you take a gun to a school just because you could?Seriously man if you can't see what's wrong with this you are seriously brainwashed. it puts the president at risk.

If I was to play Devils advocate, what would be wrong with taking a gun to school if it was legal? If a couple teachers or someone else was armed during the Virginia Tech fiasco, far fewer may have been klled.

That aside, I know a number of states have laws specifically forbidding carrying guns on school grounds (as well as other restricted places). That's the thing that many liberals don't get. Very few law abiding, gun owners commit crimes with guns.

[cutthemdown]

Would you take a gun to a school just because you could?Seriously man if you can't see what's wrong with this you are seriously brainwashed. it puts the president at risk.

no it doesn't. I researched it. The secret service can prevent anyone with a firearm from being in any building the President is in. It can also remove firearms or people from parade routes etc etc.

At no time was the President in any danger.

[tnedator]

no it doesn't. I researched it. The secret service can prevent anyone with a firearm from being in any building the President is in. It can also remove firearms or people from parade routes etc etc.

At no time was the President in any danger.

I missed the part about him saying the President is at risk. That's simply a misstatement of fact. The secret service said they are very used to dealing with people "open carrying" and work with local law enforcement. People that are open carrying, are never allowed in an area where the President would be in danger.

It just takes common sense. If we get past the rhetoric for a moment, which is more likely to put a President in danger.

1. A person open carrying a rifle or handgun, who is being watched by local police and secret service.

2. Someone like John Hinkley who has a gun hidden under a jacket or in some other means?

This isn't rocket science. A person that comes to an event to assassinate a president would NOT be openly showing the gun. Come on guys, get real.

[footstepsfrom#27]

With Ernest Hancock -- went on CNN and explained to host Rick Sanchez that he and Chris were actually in the middle of a radio broadcast. Hancock, also packing heat at the rally, had invited Chris to come down the protest with his rifle to be interviewed. The two men had known each other for two years, through their work for presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
Sounds like something that nutcake would be involved in somehow.

[footstepsfrom#27]

There is NO WAY anyone should be allowed to carry loaded guns inside a community gathering where tempers might be running high, let alone an assault rifle. Think how easy it would be to have half a dozen nuts show up and mow people down to make some kind of statement. How the hell was this allowed?

[TailgateNut]

Well, your assertion about 'who' carries guns for security is way off base, but that's a whole nother discussion.

I don't know where you live, but quite a few states have open carry laws and people are legally allowed to wear a holster and carry a pistol everywhere they go. Now, I personally probably wouldn't do it, even if I lived in an open carry state for a number of reasons: calling attention to my gun, risk of it being grabbed by a kid or someone else, etc. However, that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with a person doing so.

Anyway, even if you own a gun, your views of gun ownership and use, are clearly liberal.


My "views" are liberal. Do you pull this **** from your ass?

Your views are twisted. How's that?

[tnedator]

My "views" are liberal. Do you pull this **** from your ass?

Your views are twisted. How's that?

Typically, people that hold your views about guns are 'liberal'. You may own a gun or two, but you don't understand much about the subject.

[cutthemdown]

There is NO WAY anyone should be allowed to carry loaded guns inside a community gathering where tempers might be running high, let alone an assault rifle. Think how easy it would be to have half a dozen nuts show up and mow people down to make some kind of statement. How the hell was this allowed?

name one time that has happened when the people carrying guns were doing so legally.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Guns that talk: Is it that we fear words and ideas more than inarticulate rage?

It's like truth or dare. And it's legal.

Get your permit or whatever and you, too, can bring an assault rifle to the next presidential speech you attend. There's nothing the police can do -- amazing! If only the Democrats, back when George Bush was president, had known there was a safe, legal way to protest presidential policy and register discontent with the direction the country was headed. Can you imagine?

I ponder the phenomenon of gun speech -- the amplified malevolence of the inarticulate -- and hope, pray that it fizzles out quickly in its current manifestation: as a presence at town hall meetings on health care, at appearances by President Obama, at any random venue in which the nation's future is being discussed. I fear, however, that this is going to catch on, and if it does, well . . . the line in the sand has been drawn. At what point did public sanity cease to be a value?

Consider what life was like, oh, let's say five years ago. Here's a slice of news from July 4, 2004:

Nicole and Jeff Rank were arrested in Charleston, W.Va. -- handcuffed, hustled away, charged with trespassing -- because they were wearing T-shirts that said "Love America, Hate Bush" on the grounds of the state capitol on the day George Bush was scheduled to make a speech there. The Charleston Gazette further reported that those who applied for tickets to hear Bush's speech "were required to supply their names, addresses, birth dates, birthplaces and Social Security numbers."

That was then: "Free speech zones" were the norm; protesters were routinely whisked out of sight at every Bush appearance, even though, you know, we have a First Amendment and all.

This is now: A dozen guys with guns gathered outside a convention center in Phoenix on Monday as President Obama spoke. At least two of them had assault rifles slung over their shoulders. "Phoenix police said the men carrying guns at Monday's event did not need permits, as the state of Arizona has an 'open carry' law," the U.K. Telegraph reported. "No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested."

A few days earlier, in Portsmouth, N.H., a man with a pistol strapped to his leg, holding a sign that read "It is time to water the tree of liberty," stood outside the local high school where Obama addressed a town hall meeting on health care. Another man was, in fact, arrested in Portsmouth that day because he had a loaded, unlicensed gun in his parked truck.

And, oh yeah, on Aug. 5, at a town hall meeting sponsored by Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, at a supermarket in Douglas, Ariz., a guy carrying a holstered pistol beneath his armpit was escorted off the premises by police when the weapon fell to the floor and bounced as he bent over. He wasn't arrested.

This phenomenon has several layers of tangled complexity: The first concerns the motives of the gun toters. Why would they bring a lethal weapon to a public event? Surely not out of fear for their personal safety. (If you're that scared, just stay home, OK?) They're obviously making a point. The one I'm getting is: See this, punk? I'm not going to kill you, but I could. Yammer all you want, but just be aware that I'm the serious one here. (Those whose weapons were concealed may have been making the same point, but only for their own reassurance of self-worth.)

More troubling and puzzling is the official nonchalance with which these incidents are being met. Considering that, in the Bush era, security personnel at every level were quick to find laws that superseded free speech whenever the president showed his face in public, how can lethal firepower -- more dangerous than a T-shirt -- be tolerated in the vicinity of the president of the United States?

Is it that we fear words and ideas more than inarticulate rage? Is it that there's a soft spot in the American heart for racist simmer? Do armed he-men exhibitionists require maternal coddling? Have we forgotten that four American presidents have been assassinated? Have we crossed the line that separates debate and disagreement from civil war?

Just asking. I don't think we have, but I do think we could. Guns are, indeed, speech: Carry one and you can't help but make an aggressive statement about what you believe and what you are capable of doing. A gun that goes off is something else again, however. It hardly matters whether the firing is accidental or intentional, because the consequences always have the potential to eclipse, tragically, the limited intentions -- the "speech" -- of the shooter.

My prayer is that we find the courage to grope for our common future together, and that the invisible infrastructure of public respect remains intact. This means we must check our weapons, but not our ideas, as we enter the debate.

About author:
Robert Koehler, an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, is an editor at Tribune Media Services and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at bob@commonwonders.com (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bob@commonwonders.com)

[tnedator]

Hmm, an article written by a Chicago author -- Illinois one of ONLY two states in the nation (along with Wisconsin) that do not issue permits for guns.

While I think it is politically wrong to carry a gun to a public event, and in fact is a safety issue. Not safety of the person carrying it, but of the rest of the crowd who might try and take it -- in NH an Obama supporter spit in the face and verbally assaulted the man with the pistol.

As to free speech zones, I am not sure what you call it under the Obama administration, but there were designated areas where 'protestors' could stand,and this is where the libertatians with the guns stood.

You talk about a statement, and intimate that the intention is to try and intimidate, but it doesn't take a gun to do that. When you have guys that look like defensive linemen from the pipe fitters union that are acting like bouncers at a high class night club, deciding who can or can't enter, that's intimidation. When members of the service union international beat up a man for handing out "Don't tread on me" flags, that's intimidation.

Carrying a gun might be politically stupid, because of the ammunition that it gives the anti-gun liberals, but it is far less intimidating to free speech than union thugs and enforcers beating up civil protestors or just attendees at Town Hall meetings.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Starting a post with "shoot the messenger" (pun intended) - ain't that just like a rightie?

[tnedator]

Starting a post with "shoot the messenger" (pun intended) - ain't that just like a rightie?

Spin over substance, just like a lefty.

[SoCalBronco]

if its legal to carry a gun then whats the ****ing problem? I guess these gun lovers smart to start the fight now because obviously most don't respect there right to carry a firearm.

No right is ever absolute. Every right is always qualified, depending on the benefits and detriments of the circumstances. There's simply no rational purpose in allowing a citizen to have a loaded weapon at an event in which the President is attending. There's absolutely nothing good that can come of it. It's clearly distinguishable from the salutary goals of self-protection in the home in a bad neighborhood, or of recreational hunting in the fields. But at a rally where the President is. What rational purpose is there to allow someone to carry a gun there? Can you tell me one?

The secret service should be ashamed of themselves that they allowed this event to go forward with people in the vicinity with weapons! This is absurd on its face.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No right is ever absolute. Every right is always qualified, depending on the benefits and detriments of the circumstances. There's simply no rational purpose in allowing a citizen to have a loaded weapon at an event in which the President is attending. There's absolutely nothing good that can come of it. It's clearly distinguishable from the salutary goals of self-protection in the home in a bad neighborhood, or of recreational hunting in the fields. But at a rally where the President is. What rational purpose is there to allow someone to carry a gun there? Can you tell me one?

The secret service should be ashamed of themselves that they allowed this event to go forward with people in the vicinity with weapons! This is absurd on its face.

Very well-argued, and I quite agree. :thumbsup:

[tnedator]

Very well-argued, and I quite agree. :thumbsup:

All except the part about the secret service. They did their job. The people with guns were in a designated "free speech zone", as you guys call them, the secret service was aware of them and as they said, they were no where near the president and he was never in danger. They said they are used to dealing with people open carrying and work with local law enforcement if there is ever any question/concern in terms of needing to relocate them.

I agree that it makes no political sense to carry guns at a presidential rally, and I would be in favor of a law against it (similar to a TFR - temporary flight restriction - that might go up in the area where the President is). The fact is that a person open carrying a gun in a designated protest area is much less dangerous to the President than a person with a gun or bomb under his jacket, but that is really besides the point.

Anyway, the secret service did nothing wrong, and do not need to be ashamed of themselves -- the President was nowhere near being 'in danger'.

The people that should be ashamed of themselves it the group of libertarians, because they will give the liberals in congress fodder for their anti-gun propaganda machines. Just read this thread.

[footstepsfrom#27]

How can this possibly be true? I once attended a presidential appearance in Tennessee when Reagan showed up to make a speach at the airport. The secret service took my 35mm camera and fired off a couple shots to be sure it wasn't a gun. They even had me take the lense off so they could look at it. They stationed teams of snipers on rooftops around the airport and security was so tight you couldn't bring in anything except yourself and a camera. Down here when Bush showed up in Dallas they roped off 3 streets that led to the area and nobody without a ticket to this thing could get through. They turned you around and made you take another route to wherever you were going. Are you telling me that people can literally get within the line of sight to Obama with loaded guns? Or are they being made to wait outside the building or down the street? I don't get it.

**EDIT: OK now I see post #32

[tnedator]

How can this possibly be true? I once attended a presidential appearance in Tennessee when Reagan showed up to make a speach at the airport. The secret service took my 35mm camera and fired off a couple shots to be sure it wasn't a gun. They even had me take the lense off so they could look at it. They stationed teams of snipers on rooftops around the airport and security was so tight you couldn't bring in anything except yourself and a camera. Down here when Bush showed up in Dallas they roped off 3 streets that led to the area and nobody without a ticket to this thing could get through. They turned you around and made you take another route to wherever you were going. Are you telling me that people can literally get within the line of sight to Obama with loaded guns? Or are they being made to wait outside the building or down the street? I don't get it.

**EDIT: OK now I see post #32

I see you edited your post, but since this is the 'fear mongering' that the liberal press, bloggers and forum posters are conducting, here is a little more.

In articles from CNN and LA Times and such, we see headlines like:

Obama at risk from gun-toting protesters?

Gunning for Health Care

And other similar headlines.

Here is what the secret service said:

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.

"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How can this possibly be true? I once attended a presidential appearance in Tennessee when Reagan showed up to make a speach at the airport. The secret service took my 35mm camera and fired off a couple shots to be sure it wasn't a gun. They even had me take the lense off so they could look at it. They stationed teams of snipers on rooftops around the airport and security was so tight you couldn't bring in anything except yourself and a camera. Down here when Bush showed up in Dallas they roped off 3 streets that led to the area and nobody without a ticket to this thing could get through. They turned you around and made you take another route to wherever you were going. Are you telling me that people can literally get within the line of sight to Obama with loaded guns? Or are they being made to wait outside the building or down the street? I don't get it.

**EDIT: OK now I see post #32

Exactly.

Hell, forget about guns - when the court-appointed pinhead was in office, you couldn't even show up at one of his events with a t-shirt that expressed a dissenting message or opinion without getting hustled out by the Secret Service or some RNC thugs.

[cutthemdown]

Would you take a gun to a school just because you could?Seriously man if you can't see what's wrong with this you are seriously brainwashed. it puts the president at risk.

I thought same thing till I read they don't get allowed anywhere within a shot of the President. I would have no problem however with a law that says no firearms within so many feet of the President by anyone other then police and secret service.

[BroncsRule]

I thought same thing till I read they don't get allowed anywhere within a shot of the President. I would have no problem however with a law that says no firearms within so many feet of the President by anyone other then police and secret service.

No one is permitted in the President's presence with a weapon except the members of the SS detail on duty.

Local police and even federal agents from any agency other than the SS must surrender their weapon at a checkpoint.

[cutthemdown]

No right is ever absolute. Every right is always qualified, depending on the benefits and detriments of the circumstances. There's simply no rational purpose in allowing a citizen to have a loaded weapon at an event in which the President is attending. There's absolutely nothing good that can come of it. It's clearly distinguishable from the salutary goals of self-protection in the home in a bad neighborhood, or of recreational hunting in the fields. But at a rally where the President is. What rational purpose is there to allow someone to carry a gun there? Can you tell me one?

The secret service should be ashamed of themselves that they allowed this event to go forward with people in the vicinity with weapons! This is absurd on its face.

I disagree they should be commended for not doing that. What the gun rights wanted was for Obama to force them to leave or take there guns away. Secret Service should be proud they were smart enough to not fall for that.

As far as a rational reason the only one would be to make a point.

IMO there is no need for an ar-15 strolling through a crowded park.

My point is though I can't remember anyone who was legally carrying a gun, that then went on to shoot up a crowd. I'm probably wrong because pretty much everything has happened once.

The point the gun totters would make is I have the gun so some crazy person will think twice before he tries to start killing unarmed civilians.

Honestly crime goes down in areas where people have a lot of legal guns.

The problems are in the citites where only the criminals have them.

[cutthemdown]

No one is permitted in the President's presence with a weapon except the members of the SS detail on duty.

Local police and even federal agents from any agency other than the SS must surrender their weapon at a checkpoint.

thanks.

Then like I said President never in danger so let's not make the fact Obama was in a building near someone carrying a rifle the issue.

The issue is should private citizens with no criminal record be allowed to carry guns? It has nothing to do with President really, the secret service know how to do there job.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[/B]

I disagree they should be commended for not doing that. What the gun rights wanted was for Obama to force them to leave or take there guns away. Secret Service should be proud they were smart enough to not fall for that.


Putting politics ahead of all else, including the president's safety, eh?

Who woulda thunk?

[tnedator]

Putting politics ahead of all else, including the president's safety, eh?

Who woulda thunk?

So, you are saying the secret service spokesman was lying? They intentionally put the President at risk hoping something would happne? ???

Come on, it was politically stupid by the people that brought the guns, but it did not put the President's safety at risk. The fact is that the guys walking around with guns, in a designated "free speech zone" as you would call it if Bush was President, were nowhere near the president and being monitored by local police as well as the whole crowd being monitored by police and secret service.

[barryr]

Many on the left stupidly think anyone that has a license to carry a gun is just waiting to shoot someone. Most crimes that have been prevented or stopped before any law enforcement could make it have been because someone had a gun to offset the criminal, but most lefty organizations don't like to hear facts like that. Gets in the way of the agenda which apparently is to try to make it so only the criminals have the guns.

[tnedator]

Many on the left stupidly think anyone that has a license to carry a gun is just waiting to shoot someone. Most crimes that have been prevented or stopped before any law enforcement could make it have been because someone had a gun to offset the criminal, but most lefty organizations don't like to hear facts like that. Gets in the way of the agenda which apparently is to try to make it so only the criminals have the guns.

When the national concealed carry reciprocity bill (which I wasn't really in favor of) was being voted on in the senate, the liberals were doing that 'fear mongering' that supposedely only the GOP does. Liberal senators were saying that if this law passed, then people would be walking around with guns and the murder rates would sky rocket (or something like that).

It was a completely baseless claim, as there is no data that supports an increase in murders where concealed carry permits have been issued and specifically what they were saying, by those people with concealed carry permits.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/ready-aim.jpg