A poll about open carrying near POTUS events (MSNBC)

This is a discussion on A poll about open carrying near POTUS events (MSNBC) within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Hit with a yes!...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 58

Thread: A poll about open carrying near POTUS events (MSNBC)

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array RemMod597's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    behind you...
    Posts
    713
    Hit with a yes!


    The maximum effective range of an excuse is zero meters.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Member Array Bricktop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    58
    Voted yes
    VERITAS AEQUITAS

  4. #33
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    voted yes again...wonder how many times you can vote...I clear my history every day....maybe that is why....
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,180
    Quote Originally Posted by FHBrumb View Post
    The "No firearm within X Distance of a Government Offical Law" would then be an easy sell.
    The "kings" are near firearms every day, if they live outside DC. They simply don't know when or where. Ceasing the criminalization of upstanding citizens won't alter that, except in OC situations.

    Also, if there was a shot taken ... at whatever Official was present, the guy doing the OC would certainly be on a short list of addresses for bullets to be delivered.
    Hm. Someone going about their business WITHOUT a gun in hand isn't quite the same thing as an active shooter. I would think that SS agents are intelligent enough to tell the difference. I mean, it's not like this would be in DC, where they haven't seen a good guy with a gun in nearly two generations.

    I just gotta feelin' that it's a bad idea...
    Having UPSTANDING citizens carrying and going about their business isn't going to threaten anyone, and that's about all whom the legal change would affect. They're not the shooters, the assassins, the bad guys.

    And, quite simply, bad guys are already carrying weapons when they choose. Changing the mix to stop criminalizing upstanding citizens won't change that.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #35
    Senior Member Array JJVP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    502
    Up to 64.5% Yes and 35.5 % No. Keep on voting.

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array A1C Lickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,046
    Voted yes.

    Surprisingly we're still ahead. (64.8-35.2)
    TSgt. Lickey

    It takes a college degree to break'em;
    and a high school education to fix'em!

  8. #37
    New Member Array old lawman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    3
    +1 here just because if You give some of these slickers an inch, they take a foot, but I believe the ones that have carried open thus far, have done so in poor judgment.
    I would hope common sense would set in and those who would carry would do so concealed legally and responsibly.
    We have free speech to but its against the law to campaign at a voting station...
    The guy carrying the assault weapon was a bit overboard IMO...
    It's that kind of judgment that can make Us all look nuts..
    A man looked out at the world and saw nothing but evil.
    In grief and despair, He cried out to the Lord:
    "God, why don't you do something?"
    And the Lord replied.
    "I did, I sent You forth"

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array shooterX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,849
    voted yes

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array JohnKelly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    554
    Voted yes, 65/35 now in favor.

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,180
    Question: Does any documented proof exist of upstanding citizens blowing sideways or spontaneously combusting the moment a VIP comes within three city blocks? Does the frequency of such attacks exceed 1/10000th of 1%? Bueller ... Bueller ... Bueller?
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #41
    Ex Member Array NavyLT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    471
    I voted NO.

    And if you believe that, please PM me because I have a bridge in my back yard I am trying to sell!

  13. #42
    Member Array FHBrumb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    USA, where else?
    Posts
    495
    You know, to a degree, the protection of the First Amendment is limited regarding the President already. There is no guaranteed protection under Freedom of Speach, if "Speach" includes a direct threat to the safety of the President. No difficult extension to include the rest of the Amendments.

    On a local level, the First Amendment protection does not protect one that threatens violence on an airplane or any act of terrorism... Nor does the protection of the Second Amendment. The FAA weilds Federal Law, and it says no guns on planes...

    Again, we can choose to exercise good judgement, or give folks the reason they need to exercise limitations (infringements) against us.

    "Shall not be infringed", includes in the presence of the President, as of now. If we give cause, I can see a degree of limitation there as well... This takes almost no imagination...
    Washington Post 06/28/2010 re: Supreme Court Decision
    "The court's decision means that the enigmatically worded Second Amendment... identifies an individual right to gun ownership, like the freedom of speech, that cannot be unduly restricted by Congress, state laws or city ordinances. "

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,180
    Quote Originally Posted by FHBrumb View Post
    There is no guaranteed protection under Freedom of Speach, if "Speach" includes a direct threat to the safety of the President.
    You say that as if upstanding citizens having the means to defend themselves constitutes a threat to anyone.

    No upstanding citizen carrying a defensive weapon is a threat to anyone, including to elected people.

    It's the criminals who are the threat. Those idiots are already doing what they can to threaten others, carrying the means to commit their crimes, getting through to places where body-cavity searches aren't being performed.

    These are two completely separate groups of people, and they distinguish themselves via their actions.

    No surprises, there.

    Again, we can choose to exercise good judgement, or give folks the reason they need to exercise limitations (infringements) against us.
    Some would label as "bad judgment" the idea that a "normal" (non-elected) citizen's life matches the value of the life of a person who has been elected to a job, and that such a person dares be within a mile while avoiding being forcibly disarmed. I'm not one of them. I'm sure that many don't equate having been elected to a publicly-funded position as meaning that person's value is elevated over that of a child or family, or the next ten citizens in line. IMO, that's simply not cause enough to forcibly disarm everyone else, merely so they can hear someone speak over yonder.

    Simple precautions can be taken sufficient to protect a person who is presenting to an audience that need not destroy people's rights or put the speaker at grave risk of anything.

    "Shall not be infringed", includes in the presence of the President, as of now. If we give cause, I can see a degree of limitation there as well... This takes almost no imagination...
    No upstanding citizen is giving cause. Nobody should make that mistake.

    That CRIMINALS give cause is something entirely different. Yes, there will be those who equate the two. Those are folks who cannot think clearly. Yes, some of those unthinking people have power enough to swing opinions. Yeah, well. What else is new? That is the challenge: to make clear the distinction between upstanding people and criminals, and to ensure that people are continually reminded of the difference.

    I believe we can both halt the evisceration of rights as well as have sufficient safety/security of a few speakers in elected positions. I believe it's possible to see a day coming when the mere fact Bob works for Company X is insufficient cause to claim that he's worth all protection and all other people in proximity are worth none.

    Now, all that being said, public carrying of defensive weapons is one thing. Carrying to a private function or on private property is something else entirely. You want certain speakers to have a cocoon during speech making? Then, the speech making can be done at a private event, with full body searches done until everyone's smiling from ear to ear. You want a speaker to be able to speak under the stars, or by the bay, or under the trees? Then, the speech maker can speak at a private venue and have the image piped to the outdoor area for the public to see. Realistically, the message is piped to the rest of the world from that little podium, anyway. It's less than irrelevant that the message also gets piped outside. But it need be no reason to disarm everyone within a mile.

    We only disarm because we allow it to happen to us, we allow them to criminalize us. We need not accept that. That can be changed. And it should be changed, IMO, because it's simply not true. So that means public speakers with fear of their audiences need to take a few more precautions than they otherwise would? Big loss? Says whom? So "known" speakers don't speak at public gatherings only following disarmament of everyone within a mile? Great, so a few other precautions are taken, or they don't speak in public venues. That's not big loss. It's certainly not a crime. Whereas, walking on the rights of an entire people essentially is. And we've allowed to happen anyway.

    Most won't see it this way, I'm sure. But to me it's fairly obvious. YMMV. And that's fine.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  15. #44
    Distinguished Member Array Rugergirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,954
    I just checked the results. Roughly 2/3 of the voters are supporting the right to carry, as it should be.
    I wonder if MSNBC is concerned about the number of white racists that support the right to carry?

    See this this link, if you haven't already:
    I think MSNBC is trying to get the President shot at. - Moe_Lane’s blog - RedState
    Quite and interesting view of the honesty in reporting coming from MSNBC
    Disclaimer: The posts made by this member are only the members opinion, not a reflection on anyone else, nor the group, and should not be cause for anyone to get their undergarments wedged in an uncomfortable position.

  16. #45
    Member Array theotherlis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    113
    Of course voted yes.

    I do believe I read in a few places that in both recent instances of a person OC'ing to a presidential event, the persons were not actually near the president. He was speaking inside and they were outside. That makes it even more perplexing to me why it should even be news.

    What I am happy to see however is how strongly people on that site are voting yes. Surprised and slightly lifted in my general hope of people.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. MSNBC Video on man open carrying at town meeting on healthcare
    By Zach and Holly in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: March 29th, 2010, 01:48 PM
  2. MSNBC Poll: College Carry
    By thinkat in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: November 25th, 2008, 07:57 PM
  3. MSNBC Poll: In God We Trust
    By Paco in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: August 23rd, 2008, 01:55 AM
  4. Please vote on MSNBC gun poll
    By Rmart30 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: July 28th, 2008, 12:02 PM
  5. New Newsweek/MSNBC poll
    By SIGguy229 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: April 26th, 2007, 03:59 PM