NavyLT

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!

FHBrumb

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...

__________________
Amendment XIV
Section 1. ...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

ccw9mm

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.

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.

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.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Deal with evil through strength. Affirm the good in Man through trust.
NRA. GOA. OFF.

Rugergirl

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.

theotherlis

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.

ccw9mm

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.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Deal with evil through strength. Affirm the good in Man through trust.
NRA. GOA. OFF.

Plop

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

FHBrumb

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.

__________________
Amendment XIV
Section 1. ...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

SatCong

__________________
NRA PATRON LIFE

tangoseal

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