Hit with a yes!
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!...
Hit with a yes!
Anti-gun billionaires + Low info voters = Passage of Washington I-594
voted yes again...wonder how many times you can vote...I clear my history every day....maybe that is why....
S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger
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.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.
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.I just gotta feelin' that it's a bad idea...
And, quite simply, bad guys are already carrying weapons when they choose. Changing the mix to stop criminalizing upstanding citizens won't change that.
Up to 64.5% Yes and 35.5 % No. Keep on voting.
Surprisingly we're still ahead. (64.8-35.2)
It takes a college degree to break'em;
and a high school education to fix'em!
+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"
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?
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!
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. "
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.
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.Again, we can choose to exercise good judgement, or give folks the reason they need to exercise limitations (infringements) against us.
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.
No upstanding citizen is giving cause. Nobody should make that mistake."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...
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.
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.
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.