"Evil assault rifle" at one of Obama's town hall meetings

[bcj1755]

Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
AP
By AMANDA LEE MYERS and TERRY TANG, Associated Press Writers Amanda Lee Myers And Terry Tang, Associated Press Writers – Mon Aug 17, 6:22 pm ET

PHOENIX – About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.

Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who monitored the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.

"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends."

Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.

"It's a political statement," he told The Boston Globe. "If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."

Police asked the man to move away from school property, but he was not arrested.

Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend.

"When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance," Solop said. "It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication."

He said he's never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. "The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation," he said.

Phoenix was Obama's last stop on a four-day tour of western states, including Montana and Colorado.

Authorities in Montana said they received no reports of anyone carrying firearms during Obama's health care town hall near Bozeman on Friday. About 1,000 people both for and against Obama converged at a protest area near the Gallatin Field Airport hangar where the event took place. One person accused of disorderly conduct was detained and released, according to the Gallatin Airport Authority.

Heather Benjamin of Denver's Mesa County sheriff's department, the lead agency during Obama's visit there, said no one was arrested.

Arizona is an "open-carry" state, which means anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it's visible. Only someone carrying a concealed weapon is required to have a permit.

Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.

"To me, this is craziness," he said. "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone."

He said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening," he 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."

Representatives of the National Rifle Association did not return calls for comment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/...rotesters_guns

Oh no! Not an evil SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE I love the responces from the AZ LEOs and even from the Secret Service I'm shocked that a "political scientist" from a major university would seem so...liberal Why is it the antis make "semi-automatic" to be "evil"? Do they not realize that a revolver is semi-auto? Oh no, they don't. Mos tof them are brainwashed sheep anyhow. And the antis that know the difference willfully lie to the ones that don't.

[45nut]

It's the 50 BMG @ 2,000 yards one needs to worry about, not one dude with an AR

What a bunch of hoplophobes!

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by 45nut

It's the 50 BMG @ 2,000 yards one needs to worry about, not one dude with an AR

Bingo! And to the credit of the Secret Service, the comments in the article from their spokesman indicate that they realize that.

[cycloneman]

"When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance," Solop said. "It actually becomes quite scary for many people.


Didn't the black panthers bring guns to political rallys in the past? So what was good for the negros is good enough for me.

joke them if they cant take a f***.

[mrkirker]

When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance

Yep!

[Bubblehead]

In this day and age of "gun control nuts", I really don't think we need that kind of publicity. It will fan the flames of the opposition much in the same way that Obama-Care is fanning the flames of conservative opposition.

Just my opinion.

John

[LurpyGeek]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead

In this day and age of "gun control nuts", I really don't think we need that kind of publicity. It will fan the flames of the opposition much in the same way that Obama-Care is fanning the flames of conservative opposition.

Just my opinion.

John

I agree. I understand that he was within his rights and within the law, but I don't really see what he was hoping to accomplish and what point he was trying to make. This kind of publicity doesn't show firearms owners in a positive light.

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead

In this day and age of "gun control nuts", I really don't think we need that kind of publicity. It will fan the flames of the opposition much in the same way that Obama-Care is fanning the flames of conservative opposition.

Just my opinion.

John

Originally Posted by LurpyGeek

I agree. I understand that he was within his rights and within the law, but I don't really see what he was hoping to accomplish and what point he was trying to make. This kind of publicity doesn't show firearms owners in a positive light.

I have to disagree with this one. Why should law abiding citizens not exercise one of their rights in the presence of The Great One? So we should agree to not do something that we are prefectly legal in doing just so we don't "send the wrong message"? What's next, not speaking out in disagreement with Barry so we "don't send the wrong message"? Don't fan the flames of opposition? Isn't that the liberals do every night on the TV "news"? We're already forbidden to exercise our God-given right of self defense when we enter a gov't office building or a courthouse. So in order to "not send the wrong message" we should voluntarily give up that right whenever King-Emperor Barack I His Great Awesomeness and All-Knowing Teleprompter comes to town? In order to "not send the message" we shouldn't take firearms to political rallies? What's next, don't speak out against the Great Kenyan Master in order to "not send the wrong message"? Conservatives have been trying to be polite and respectful and have tried to "not send the wrong message" and, quite frankly, that has resulted in us losing our country. People have been voluntarily giving up their rights to be polite and not rock the boat and not send the wrong message and what has happened? The liberals have taken the opportunity to run rampant! "not sending the wrong message" is one of the reasons that the liberals and closet-commies are in control now. "Not sending the wrong message" will not lead to us getting these jackbooted thugs and jerkwads out of Washington, DC. "Not sending the wrong message" will tell the liberals that we will bend over, take it up the cornhole, then lie down and obey. "Not sending the wrong message" will lead us to being slaves to a totalitarian socialist globalist government.

[Bobitis]

Originally Posted by LurpyGeek

I agree. I understand that he was within his rights and within the law, but I don't really see what he was hoping to accomplish and what point he was trying to make. This kind of publicity doesn't show firearms owners in a positive light.

And it never will when MSM is involved.
Problem is....
It SHOULD be reported/viewed as positive.

Where else in the world can you do this?

The 1st amendment makes this possible.
The 2nd makes sure to keep it so.

How can sheeple be so Stoopid?

[JohnTheCalifornian]

It just goes to proove that law abiding citizens with guns are NOT a threat to the public. The people with guns that ARE a threat are the criminals, which of course they would be HIDING their gun on themselves so that it could not be seen.

[kingchip]

Third paragraph says it all.

[ponycar17]

Those guys got to show their opposition to gun control and have a free photo taken at the same time.

Has anyone else noticed that the White House's Urban Policy statement has been revised since the 'ascension of the messiah' to omit the previous statement about reinstating the so-called 'assault weapons ban'? I checked this the other night and I think it's telling of the outrage gun owners have been voicing through purchases and word of mouth.

I might have totally missed the statement but I believe that it has been removed... Correct me if I'm wrong.

[LurpyGeek]

Originally Posted by bcj1755

Don't fan the flames of opposition? Isn't that the liberals do every night on the TV "news"?

So you think we should behave the exact same way that the left does? I don't think that "fanning the flames" is always the best way to forward ones cause. It generally alienates people and draws the opposition to raise their volume while no one is listening to the other party.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying and I agree with other posters that it should be viewed in a positive light, but it never will as long as the common media is involved.

Most people's only exposure to firearms is limited to movies and the news, both of which portray firearms as elements of evil and destruction and nothing else. This gentleman was exercising his rights peacefully and within the law, but once again it will be shown to the mindless masses through the lens of the media and people will not understand. Most people have no idea that you can legally carry a firearm in the open or that there is such a thing as a concealed firearm permit. These same people will see this man as another "right-wing extremist" or whatever label you prefer.

I think if you were to walk down the street past a kindergarten with a Kalashnikov slung over your back, though you may be perfectly within your rights and the law, you won't make a very good impression of yourself or other gun owners however right or wrong that may be. You might make the evening news and feel that your voice was heard, but your intent will not be painted in the light that you intended. Being disruptive isn't the way to "win hearts and minds". That is done by being a good person, neighbor, citizen, and using positive influence and reason to affect the points of view of other people.

Yes, I know that reason isn't always effective when other parties are involved.

Look at Pelosi for another example. She claims that people are bringing swastikas and armbands to these events, which they are not but she can point to a "gun nut" as the type of thing she is talking about.

[obxned]

The government in Washington from the pesron who is acting as if he iwere the President and all our representative and supreme court justices need to be reminded that they serve only with the permision of 'we, the people'. I was not born in a socialist/communiost country, and the only way I will die in one is if the bastards have supirior firepower.

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by LurpyGeek

So you think we should behave the exact same way that the left does? I don't think that "fanning the flames" is always the best way to forward ones cause. It generally alienates people and draws the opposition to raise their volume while no one is listening to the other party.

While I would generally agree with your position from an ethical and logical standpoint, I would remind you that the left is neither ethical nor logical. Stooping to their level of protest at the recent health care town halls has had an overall positive effect. It's about damn time Conservatives stop quietly opposing the issues among ourselves and stand up to be vocal about our cause. It started with the Tea Parties and has culminated in a positive opposition at the health care rallies. Let's not forget the message sent as firearms started flying off of shelves on November 5th, 2008 (see my above comment about the WH Urban Policy retration concerning the 'assault weapons ban'). I think the Conservative message is finally being sent and its being received loud and clear.

Sometimes the end justifies the means. Conservatives have been too 'conservative' in their opposition in the past. It's time to turn some heads in a peaceful but vocal manner!

[Ed K]

I sztrongly feel the guy was a plant to portray bad immage he had attitude in his comments and with out implying raceism isnt the guy black it just makes me suspect why would a responsible gun owner go to Presindital mtg. with any gun period something is not right

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by ponycar17

While I would generally agree with your position from an ethical and logical standpoint, I would remind you that the left is neither ethical nor logical. Stooping to their level of protest at the recent health care town halls has had an overall positive effect. It's about damn time Conservatives stop quietly opposing the issues among ourselves and stand up to be vocal about our cause. It started with the Tea Parties and has culminated in a positive opposition at the health care rallies. Let's not forget the message sent as firearms started flying off of shelves on November 5th, 2008 (see my above comment about the WH Urban Policy retration concerning the 'assault weapons ban'). I think the Conservative message is finally being sent and its being received loud and clear.

Sometimes the end justifies the means. Conservatives have been too 'conservative' in their opposition in the past. It's time to turn some heads in a peaceful but vocal manner!

My thoughts exactly. And you presented them much more elequently than I could

The same tac we've been using to fight the liberals has FAILED MISERABLY and led to a communist takeover of Washington, DC. If it takes using liberal tactics against the liberals, then so be it. Conservatives protesting these town hall meetings seems to be working as Obambababa has recently said that he would be open to dropping the "public" option to the health care "reform." But even that has pissed off many liberals and most Republicans still won't give any support for it. So it looks like these protestors have frustrated the Great One in some tiny way...couldn't have happened to a nicer guy

[Trouble 45-70]

At the present time I don't carry even though I have a permit to carry. I would be disinclined to carry at a political event unless my candidate was there even though he knew his life was in danger from people who would try to kill him to keep him out of office. It happens in other countries and can happen here especially with this bunch seizing power hand over fist. If I were to carry a rifle at an event with the President I would feel obligated to stop an attack on the man. Talk about mixed emotions. I have seen too many attacks on our Presidents and I deeply resent loosing the opportunity to vote for or against him. The bad thing about carrying a rifle at a presidential event, is that there would probably be at least 3 rifles zeroed in on me the whole time. That would be 3 not ready for a real bad guy. Forget about taking a shot at a bad guy. As for exercising or not exercising a right, to keep it, these people will enslave us at the drop of a hat when they think they can get away with it. They must be devastated at the ballot box in 2010. We need to hear the MSM decry the temper tantrums of the great unwashed again. I bet they will be apoplectic if we succeed in spite of the criminal attacks now being prepared to thwart us in the next election. I really resent that we have lost our representation in the Congress to Lobbyists. Lobbyist that represent groups that have interests that are antithetical to the American Experiment.
Groups that represent groups of ordinary citizens are now muzzled 30 and 60 days before an election thanks to McCain and outside influences such as Soros. The guardian Press has been totally coopted by Progressive Socialists who are in the process of trying to silence any remaining opposition. Yes, I am sore but I'm still not carrying a rifle to a presidential forum if you can called these scripted events a forum.

[Southern Boy]

Just because he was armed, I dont think he is obligated to protect little o. His best bet was to keep that rifle on his shoulder at all times. I also noticed there were no SEIU greenshirts or any other leftwing strongarms groups there interupting the protest. Totin your gun along in plain site, is like having your wallet and carkeys. ( or should be). I wonder how many people show up at these events with their concealed sidearm? Probably more than the anti's realize.

[LurpyGeek]

Originally Posted by Southern Boy

I wonder how many people show up at these events with their concealed sidearm? Probably more than the anti's realize.

That's for sure. As I mentioned above, many people don't know that there is such a thing as a concealed firearm permit. Thus when these people see a news piece stating the question "should guns be allowed on college campuses?" they don't know that there are good people who have passed a federal background check who carry legally all the time. The only guns on college campuses that they have heard of are those possessed by mass murderers.

Whenever I meet someone who thinks that you must have to be really strange to carry concealed and that it's not a common thing, I remind them that 1 in 25 Utah residents has a concealed weapons permit. Chances are, plenty of people they know too.

[questor]

Ever think this might have been a plant?

[sonsofwarfounder]

look with the proper marksman ship then i can see a ar-15 to be a threat but come on what they need to worry about is someone in the distance whether its a 300win mag or a freakin 50 cal. either way i wouldnt miss!!! Maybe by them carrying weapons because they can his stupid ass will get out of office. Hes doing nothing but screwing up things for the military.
OUT

[Artemus]

Originally Posted by questor

Ever think this might have been a plant?

I would not be suprised at all if the guy with the AR15 was a plant.Interesting thought yes indeed.However I would have thought planting a fat,white guy with a NRA hat on would have been a better plant.Especially if he was loud and boisterous.

[VegasTech702]

Well , when the libs stand up for what they want they are "Grassroots", when we stand up for our rights and beliefs it is "astroturf"... Pelosi is such a worthless wretch. I honestly wouldn't feel bad if she had an audit from the IRS and was sent to prison for tax evasion. In fact, that would call for a celebration.