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; Question: When did an elected person become so elevated, or an airplane/bus become so elevated that denial of hundreds/thousands of people the ability to defend ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 58 of 58

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

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,004
    Question: When did an elected person become so elevated, or an airplane/bus become so elevated that denial of hundreds/thousands of people the ability to defend themselves became acceptable as a "solution" to the problem?

    Does anyone know how and when the statutes/rules came about?
    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, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Senior Member Array Plop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    1,013
    Voted YES, which is currently winning at 68%.
    "In America, freedom and justice have always come from the ballot box, the jury box, and when that fails, the cartridge box."
    -- Steve Symms, US Senator from Idaho, 1990

  4. #48
    Member Array FHBrumb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    USA, where else?
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Question: When did an elected person become so elevated, or an airplane/bus become so elevated that denial of hundreds/thousands of people the ability to defend themselves became acceptable as a "solution" to the problem?

    Does anyone know how and when the statutes/rules came about?
    I do not know when, but I'm certain it did. I once received a threatening letter in the mail. I turned it over to the Police. It ended with "I'll see your sweet az$ soon..." I knew what it meant, as did the Officer. The Officer told me that since there was no spelled out indication of what would happen then, it wasn't actually a threat. I told her that it was, and asked her what if this letter was mailed to the Mayor, Governor, or President??? Was it a threat then? She refused to answer.

    Already, the First Amendment has been "infringed" upon based on certain words one cannot use in conjunction with reference to the President, and other situations. When one makes a threat against me, it's just talk. When one threatens an act against certain people, it's a crime. To attach that to any other Amendment would take no more work than has already happened.

    Another story I recently read in a gun mag was about airplanes. There was a budding domestic dispute on the plane. The man decided he wanted off the plane, and started to throw a fit. Since the plane had already been moving, he was told to sit. He refused, and said he wanted off the plane, and he had a bomb. As he tried to get off the plane, the situation escelated, and an Air Marshall shot and killed the man. There was no bomb, just the threat. The shoot was ruled justified, based on his threat alone. It was called "An Angry Man", or something like that... It was part of an article about Air Marshalls.

    If something is important enough to someone that they must take an activist role they need to ask themselves if there are any results other than the desired one. Considering potential unwelcome results is part of responsible decision making.

    Another point relating to elevated status of elected officials would be how they tend to threaten our right to keep and bare CERTAIN arms, while their families sleep well at night, guarded by men with those exact arms.

    Like it or not, we are living with a Democratically elected Aristocracy.
    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. "

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array SatCong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,780
    I voted YES.
    NRA PATRON LIFE
    BROWN WATER NAVY

  6. #50
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,337
    I do not think it was bad judgement.

    Watch as thousands of more people start to do the same nation wide. It is very smart in fact shows the anti-guns no matter what they do guns still do not kill people so in fact their philosphy is whacked out loonyness.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  7. #51
    Senior Member Array EvilMonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    N. Kentucky Area
    Posts
    808
    Yes.

    Anyone else notice that the SIEU Union Thug beatings stopped suddenly after the guns showed up?

    Very telling, no?
    That which does not kill us leaves us broken and bleeding...

    Donít mess with the guy who can barely stand up. His remaining options for self-defense don't include your survival.

    Convenire Volui Spectatus

  8. #52
    New Member Array bill5074's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Homosassa, Florida
    Posts
    4
    I wonder if that guy knew how many snipers were watching him. Going anywhere near a presidential event with a gun is not in your best interest. maybe not illegal but not to smart.

  9. #53
    Senior Member Array Chevy-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    926
    I am a completely devoted supporter of 2A. I've got plenty of guns, plus a CC permit. But I just don't think it's wise or prudent for armed citizens to be showing up at a POTUS event.

    If you want to go, that's fine, but you should leave your weapons at home. The main reason I carry is because cops are usually nowhere to be found, but an event like this is one of those rare instances where there's plenty of protection from all the cops and secret service. Why burden them with having to watch all kinds of armed citizens?

    Just my $.02, of course.

    -
    'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,004
    Quote Originally Posted by FHBrumb View Post
    Like it or not, we are living with a Democratically elected Aristocracy.
    And we need not be. It can change in one election. Won't likely, but opinions and attitudes change with each schmuck voted out of office. The ones selected need not have an aristocratic silver spoon shoved up the backside from birth, nor does the person need to treat people like that. Not all them do. NONE need to. Yes, part of the system begs for it. But, in the end, it is our choice. That's hopeful, at least.

    Every thousand upstanding people seen without negative threats or crime emanating from them will be a positive force to helping us get to where we need to be: the recognition that upstanding people are NOT the source of crime or threat, at any time, let alone when a VIP-silver-spoon type is breathing within a half-mile of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by bill5074 View Post
    Going anywhere near a presidential event with a gun is not in your best interest.
    Depends on the goals. The long-term interest of the People is to have upstanding people STOP being treated as criminals. Ain't gonna get that by rolling over for a lifetime. We're only going to get recognition that upstanding people aren't criminals and the source of crime/threat slowly, situation by situation, until the tide changes and the elected aristocracy can no longer politically afford to pee on the Constitution's intent.
    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, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  11. #55
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Chevy-SS View Post
    I am a completely devoted supporter of 2A. I've got plenty of guns, plus a CC permit. But I just don't think it's wise or prudent for armed citizens to be showing up at a POTUS event.

    If you want to go, that's fine, but you should leave your weapons at home. The main reason I carry is because cops are usually nowhere to be found, but an event like this is one of those rare instances where there's plenty of protection from all the cops and secret service. Why burden them with having to watch all kinds of armed citizens?

    Just my $.02, of course.

    -
    uh...I hate to burst any bubbles, but if you're at a POTUS event and there's various forms of LEO there, they aren't there to protect you...unless of course, you just got elected. Just a thought.
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  12. #56
    Senior Member Array Chevy-SS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    uh...I hate to burst any bubbles, but if you're at a POTUS event and there's various forms of LEO there, they aren't there to protect you...unless of course, you just got elected. Just a thought.

    I guess I should have stated it more clearly..... there's enough cops and secret service there to SERIOUSLY deter any crimes against me or my family. I think the BG's would probably stay away.

    The security forces at one of those events would certainly protect whoever was there.

    -
    'Be careful, even in small matters' - Miyamoto Musashi

  13. #57
    Member Array dukenukum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Lansing MI
    Posts
    20
    I voted yes just because the POTUS is in town does not mean I have to or will surrender my rights. If he is so afraid of the American public maybe he needs to look at what he is doing wrong or get into a different line of work.
    My open carry and gun / shooting blog
    http://adventuresinopencarr.blogspot.com/

  14. #58
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,337

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by bill5074 View Post
    I wonder if that guy knew how many snipers were watching him. Going anywhere near a presidential event with a gun is not in your best interest. maybe not illegal but not to smart.
    I COMPLETELY DISAGREE!!

    No offense but im kind of tired of people determining it is not smart to take guns to a Presidential rally.

    Those snipers are not going to shoot another American unless he makes a threating move period. And if they do not have absolutely surety in their decisions they know as well as all of you in these forums that they are going to burn in prison for murder.

    Unfortunately too many people that support these forums and 2A feel it isnt smart to take a gun to a pres rally.

    I do not understand it one bit.

    You people gripe and moan and complain about rights and all this stuff but then you want to agree that its okay to disagree with certain things such as OC at a pres rally.

    Sounds like people here are mixed up as well.

    Well freedom of opinion is awesome I will not doubt that but atleast think about what you guys really believe in.

    I would absolutely do this if it were legal in my state but we are not allowed to carry in a public gathering in GA.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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