Man arrested for brandishing Constitution!

[TFOGGuys]

Man Arrested for Brandishing Constitution at Obama Rally
PHOENIX (AP) — A man carrying a copy of the US Constitution was arrested while demonstrating outside President Obama’s speech to veterans on Monday.

Although Arizona law currently allows citizens to openly carry a Constitution for purposes of self-defense against tyrants and despots, such laws are usurped in the presence of the President.

“A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and federal law applies on a federal site,” said Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan.

Because the Constitution contains language “limiting” the powers of President - and was also written by slave-owners who considered blacks to be “three-fifths” of a person and not eligible for the office of the Presidency - the document is not protected as “free speech”. Instead, it’s covered under federal hate speech laws if one is brought within 1000 feet of President Obama.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the incident was being taken “very seriously” and that the FBI was considering further action.

“The US Constitution is a violent and revolutionary document, directly responsible for at least two wars in this nation,” said Gibbs. “Insurrectionist chatter like that may require us to consider charges of treason. We’re currently investigating the possibility, which will take some time, since no one in this administration has ever actually examined the document in question.”

“Free speech is not an absolute,” explained FBI spokesman John Miller. “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. Waving a Constitution around is essentially yelling ‘freedom!’ at a crowded Obama rally. We consider this sort of offensive language a direct threat to civil order in general and the President in particular, and it will not be tolerated.”



















ok-it's satire, alright?

[pauliep]

lol

[Horsman]

He should have gotten a CCC Concealed Carry Constitution... I ride with mine in my back pocket next to my crepes - just incase...

[salsashark]

You ride CCC!!! You never need that on a rec ride... I've never been on a ride where I needed my constitution. So no one has or will ever need one!

some people...

[Spiderman]

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the incident was being taken “very seriously” and that the FBI was considering further action.

“The US Constitution is a violent and revolutionary document, directly responsible for at least two wars in this nation,” said Gibbs. “Insurrectionist chatter like that may require us to consider charges of treason. We’re currently investigating the possibility, which will take some time, since no one in this administration has ever actually examined the document in question.”
:spit:

[Jason ON]

"... since no one in this administration has ever actually examined the document in question.”

Hey, leave Obama alone! As the previous president demonstrated, the Constitution has no place in American Politics. :usa:

[rforsythe]

Interestingly, people have been openly carrying weapons in the vicinity of presidential speeches in AZ. It isn't illegal as long as they stay out of the venue (since only the venue itself is covered by federal law when the president is in it), and surprisingly the cops sorta grasp the concept that it's perfectly legal to walk around with an AR-15 strapped to your shoulder and a Glock on your hip.

[VryfastRR]

Interestingly, people have been openly carrying weapons in the vicinity of presidential speeches in AZ. It isn't illegal as long as they stay out of the venue (since only the venue itself is covered by federal law when the president is in it), and surprisingly the cops sorta grasp the concept that it's perfectly legal to walk around with an AR-15 strapped to your shoulder and a Glock on your hip.

i kinda wonder about that one since here is the def of terrorism.

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes"

and since he said this "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time" i think most of us know that rest of that quote.


I think he would be considered a terrorist.

[rforsythe]

He didn't use violence or threaten anyone. The guns were strapped on, and carried openly which is a perfectly legal expression of your rights. If he'd been waving it around that would be different. From what I understand, even the cops were explaining his legal ability to do this to other people who complained.

Besides, it's not like he wasn't being watched the entire time or would have been allowed within sight of the prez anyway.

[VryfastRR]

its a case of him using his second amendment right to infringe on their first amendment right. most people dont feel comfortable speaking their mind when and guy on the other side of the argument has a ar-15 strapped to his back. personally i dont feel firearms should be aloud at political events.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

.....'Scuse me while I whip this out.....(Gasp!).......

Alright, nobody moves or the President gets it.......(he crazy, he jus' might do it!)

[rforsythe]

its a case of him using his second amendment right to infringe on their first amendment right. most people dont feel comfortable speaking their mind when and guy on the other side of the argument has a ar-15 strapped to his back. personally i dont feel firearms should be aloud at political events.

It wasn't AT a political event, it was OUTSIDE the political event. I feel fine with it happening, it's his right. Again, he wasn't using it to infringe on shit; he was just demonstrating his rights.

[BeoBe]

whats next? is the constitution gonna be changed? i mean if he is able to be president why is he safe from the constitution that this country is based on?

Nothing like having the president of the US protected by Hate Crime Law for this countries constitution.. You can thank the ppl for voting him!

[IT WASN'T ME!]

The guy was probably arrested for acting like a retard nut case and just happened to be brandishing the Constitution.

[rforsythe]

Some people missed the satire part of this post.. :roll:

[TFOGGuys]

Some people missed the satire part of this post.. :roll:


A result of drive by, soundbite media repor....Ohhh, a Puppy!

[DavidofColorado]

Hmmm. That's good satire!

No guns at the rallies would be a good idea I think. But the secret service might not go along with it.

[chanke4252]

Intentionally carrying a weapon that wouldn't normally be carried at such events is simply someone trying to provoke a response by intentional pressing the envelope by intentionally doing something that they know could be viewed as a threat of some sort.

The best way to push the gun issue towards people pushing even further gun control is to make gun owners seem like half-retarded dipshits who are careless with their weapons. I'm sorry to say this (not really), but if you're going to bring an assault rifle to a function like this (considering the people in attendance) that is covering a completely different issue then you are a thoughtless moron and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, period.

[DavidofColorado]

No offense. But only a half retard would think that a citizen carrying a gun to rally is a recipe for disaster.

Obama was in a east coast town hall meeting and a guy was wearing a pistol on his hip. It scared the the president so he left. In Arizona where they tell you to wear your gun instead of leaving it in your car. They wore their guns again. But the guy with his shouldered wasn't doing anything menacing with it. He wasn't waving it around or even holding it in the ready position. And since you look at a gun owner in a way that if someone were to look at the president (based on how he looks alone) he would be called a racist.

The guy holding his gun was in a clean white button up shirt with a tie and pleated pants. He wasn't so easy to call a red neck either because he wasn't even white he was a well dressed black man that cared about his rights and was making a statement that he will exercise his rights.

But the liberal media ignored all that and made http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&eurl=http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html&feature=player_embedded]this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&eurl=http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html&feature=player_embedded%5Dthis) story and showed their bias by hiding his face and hands and anything else that would show his race. And they were http://mindyourowndamnbusinesspolitics.com/wordpress (http://%5BURL)/2009/08/20/msnbc-cries-wolf-on-assault-weapon-racism/]busted.

But here is the another video of the guy at the Arizona rally.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkW116vzkxg&feature=related

Now here is my last point that you are talking about something you know nothing about. His gun that he was wearing looked just like an AR-15 with a EOTech holographic site on it for sure. But that is all you can tell. If you want to call it an Assault Rifle you are wrong and just trying to make it scary sounding. There is no such thing as an AR-15 assault rifle. An assault rifle is a gun that can shoot either fully automatic or burst mode. And those are called M-16's and you can not tell from the video if is capible of shooting like that. And since the video is so bad you can't even tell if its a real gun. For all we know he was sporting a Airsoft gun that is made to look just like the real thing. The AR-15 is made to look like the M-16 in order to sell as the closest thing you can get to a real machine gun but it shoots semiauto only and its just a rifle then scary black looking gun is all there was to see.

So try to keep the hystaricals down because as I just shown its not true and now nobody is buying it.
He was making a statement that honest law abiding gun owners have the guns that he has no problem banning.

Its no different than a left wing kook throwing a shoe at the president to get a point across. His point was that he didn't like being on the loosing end of the war in Iraq.

The guy at the rally was making a statement that he exercises his right to keep and bear arms. If his actions were anything but peacful you could say that it was a dangerous thing he was doing. But he didn't, he just stood there and protested. He's getting way more attention then a sign or a photochopped picture.

[Spongebutt]

Of course if an AR-15 shouldn't be aloud. If it's aloud, it's in the process of being fired. It should, however, be allowed.

[chanke4252]

No offense. But only a half retard would think that a citizen carrying a gun to rally is a recipe for disaster.

Obama was in a east coast town hall meeting and a guy was wearing a pistol on his hip. It scared the the president so he left. In Arizona where they tell you to wear your gun instead of leaving it in your car. They wore their guns again. But the guy with his shouldered wasn't doing anything menacing with it. He wasn't waving it around or even holding it in the ready position. And since you look at a gun owner in a way that if someone were to look at the president (based on how he looks alone) he would be called a racist.

The guy holding his gun was in a clean white button up shirt with a tie and pleated pants. He wasn't so easy to call a red neck either because he wasn't even white he was a well dressed black man that cared about his rights and was making a statement that he will exercise his rights.

But the liberal media ignored all that and made http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&eurl=http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html&feature=player_embedded]this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI&eurl=http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/index.html&feature=player_embedded%5Dthis) story and showed their bias by hiding his face and hands and anything else that would show his race. And they were http://mindyourowndamnbusinesspolitics.com/wordpress (http://%5BURL)/2009/08/20/msnbc-cries-wolf-on-assault-weapon-racism/]busted.

But here is the another video of the guy at the Arizona rally.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkW116vzkxg&feature=related

Now here is my last point that you are talking about something you know nothing about. His gun that he was wearing looked just like an AR-15 with a EOTech holographic site on it for sure. But that is all you can tell. If you want to call it an Assault Rifle you are wrong and just trying to make it scary sounding. There is no such thing as an AR-15 assault rifle. An assault rifle is a gun that can shoot either fully automatic or burst mode. And those are called M-16's and you can not tell from the video if is capible of shooting like that. And since the video is so bad you can't even tell if its a real gun. For all we know he was sporting a Airsoft gun that is made to look just like the real thing. The AR-15 is made to look like the M-16 in order to sell as the closest thing you can get to a real machine gun but it shoots semiauto only and its just a rifle then scary black looking gun is all there was to see.

So try to keep the hystaricals down because as I just shown its not true and now nobody is buying it.
He was making a statement that honest law abiding gun owners have the guns that he has no problem banning.

Its no different than a left wing kook throwing a shoe at the president to get a point across. His point was that he didn't like being on the loosing end of the war in Iraq.

The guy at the rally was making a statement that he exercises his right to keep and bear arms. If his actions were anything but peacful you could say that it was a dangerous thing he was doing. But he didn't, he just stood there and protested. He's getting way more attention then a sign or a photochopped picture.

I understand what you are saying, but feel free to keep your insults to yourself.

There is a HUGE difference between someone carrying a handgun properly holstered, and someone carrying a shouldered larger caliber ASSAULT RIFLE to a function where security is a massive issue.

Yes, he was making a statement, but he was making it in a threatening way by bringing a totally inappropriate weapon to such a function in a way that could be interpreted as a threat by those working security (Secret Service, who tend to take the issue of "protection of the President" pretty seriously). This is due to the fact that people typically don't bring ASSAULT RIFLES to public functions like this (especially when it's a function involving the US President), so it is definitely outside of the social norms and as such is obviously going to be (and obviously intended to be so) very suspicious even if it is totally legal and for the sake of making a point.

Besides, you are trying to make a likely larger caliber gun (or a gun made to look like one) seem like less of a threat by falling back on some personal definition of the term "assault rifle". It doesn't matter if it was an assault rifle or a watergun, the message that is being sent by so absurdly bringing something that looks like an assault rifle to such a function is that "hey, I'm a moron who doesn't understand tact, and is trying to make an issue out of what is currently a non-issue." Ever hear those stories about kids being shot when brandishing toy guns that looked real?

I'm sorry, but all of this "Oh my oh my, Obama gonna take ours gunses. Good gracious me!" stuff is moronic. When is this supposed to happen again? Oh wait, could I be making an issue out of a non-issue just because this is a typical right vs. left topic and I am buying into half-baked partisan bullshit? This is kind of like someone participating in an anti-war rally against a war that isn't happening... Yes it's legal, yes it's stupid.

I absolutely support your right to bear arms, but if you want to ensure that your right to bear arms isn't infringed upon (which is great), there are ways to do so without being a dipshit. Going about things this way simply makes gun owners look socially careless and like stupid fanatics, which doesn't exactly further their cause any. I mean we could turn this into a short bus vs. regular bus issue, but that doesn't exactly help if the goal is a practical protection of your rights. Basically, it's asinine to try to think that this is somehow productive.

Besides, these town halls are great and the emphasis on them is something we kind of missed from the last admin. A great way to end this much necessary dialogue is to turn it into an uncivil, aggressive situation. It seems that some people don't understand that Obama has no legal obligation to attend these functions and can't help but act like fanatical morons.

[= Buckeye Jess =]

LMAO....I'm just now getting around to checking this thread out and I was thinking it was serious up until the third paragraph....where I spit the coffee clean outta my mouth onto the computer. dammit.
haha!

[The GECCO]

I understand what you are saying, but feel free to keep your insults to yourself.

There is a HUGE difference between someone carrying a handgun properly holstered, and someone carrying a shouldered larger caliber ASSAULT RIFLE to a function where security is a massive issue.

The AR15 fires a .223 round - a smaller caliber than 95% of the handguns carried in this country. Most self chambering rifles (semi and fully automatic) shoot small caliber rounds. You can carry more rounds into battle, and the gun doesn't beat you to a pulp when you fire it.

But, on to the larger point - what was the big deal that he had the weapon, no matter what it was? Why is it so scary? Because he had the ability to hurt people? We ALL have that ability, if we choose to do so. I could drive my truck down the sidewalk in LoDo and injure/kill dozens of people, but no one freaks out when they see me with my keys.

You say there is a difference between the holstered handgun and the slung rifle - really? What difference? Two people attended public events while legally carrying firearms. Neither of them killed, injured or even menaced anyone, then they went home. Where's the difference? I'll tell you - The difference is in YOUR mind, and nowhere else.

[DavidofColorado]

I understand what you are saying, but feel free to keep your insults to yourself.

There is a HUGE difference between someone carrying a handgun properly holstered, and someone carrying a shouldered larger caliber ASSAULT RIFLE to a function where security is a massive issue.

Yes, he was making a statement, but he was making it in a threatening way by bringing a totally inappropriate weapon to such a function in a way that could be interpreted as a threat by those working security. This is due to the fact that people typically don't bring ASSAULT RIFLES to public functions like this, so it is definitely outside of the social norms and as such is obviously going to be (and obviously intended to be so) very suspicious even if it is totally legal and for the sake of making a point.

Besides, you are trying to make a likely larger caliber gun (or a gun made to look like one) seem like less of a threat by falling back on some personal definition of the term "assault rifle". It doesn't matter if it was an assault rifle or a watergun, the message that is being sent by so absurdly bringing something that looks like an assault rifle to such a function is that "hey, I'm a moron who doesn't understand tact, and is trying to make an issue out of what is currently a non-issue." Ever hear those stories about kids being shot when brandishing toy guns that looked real?

I'm sorry, but all of this "Oh my oh my, Obama gonna take ours gunses. Good gracious me!" stuff is moronic. When is this supposed to happen again? Oh wait, could I be making an issue out of a non-issue just because this is a typical right vs. left topic and I am buying into half-baked partisan bullshit? This is kind of like someone participating in an anti-war rally against a war that isn't happening... Yes it's legal, yes it's stupid.

I absolutely support your right to bear arms, but if you want to ensure that your right to bear arms isn't infringed upon (which is great), there are ways to do so without being a dipshit. Going about things this way simply makes gun owners look socially careless and like stupid fanatics, which doesn't exactly further their cause any. I mean we could turn this into a short bus vs. regular bus issue, but that doesn't exactly help if the goal is a practical protection of your rights.
Damn, I thought I re read it and took out all the insults. Oh well some will be insulted no matter what I say. I'm not going to worry about it to much.

I typed in google just "assault rifle" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle) and this is what I got...

The term assault rifle is a translation of the German (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language) word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound." The name was coined by Adolf Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#cite_note-0) to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG44), the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept.
The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#cite_note-1)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#cite_note-3)


It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_%28firearm%29));
It must be capable of selective fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire);
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol) but less than a standard rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle) or battle rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle);
Its ammunition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammunition) must be supplied from a detachable box magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magazine_%28firearms%29#Magazine_types).

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15) (which the M-16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-16) rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire.So having said that if you still don't think that its just my personal definition its ok. I know that you get your definition from the news. If they were wrong about that then they could be wrong about more.

A .223 or 5.56 nato is about half the size of a .45 acp bullet. It does have a larger powder charge than a pistol. But don't call it high-powered either, because its made to be less powerful than full power cartrige. Its intermediate round.

He wasn't shooting it though. He was carrying his gun and I don't see how see that makes him shooting it or even thinking that he would. Just haveing a gun doesn't make you a mass murderer. The gun isn't going to do anything on its own either. It just sits there and collects dust most of the time.

I don't think gun control is a democrat thing only. The GOP will grab my guns just as fast if it serves their purposes. But they don't fixate on it like the dems do (e.g. in a disaster the dems will worry about grabbing guns first and blame second then if there is time they worry about rescuing people.1 (http://www.impeachbush.tv/news/katrina_timeline.html))

Now if you have any questions... lettmeknow.
Do you still think you are so smart? ASSAULT RIFLE... cause I said it was.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Some people missed the satire part of this post.. :roll:
Maybe from now on we should have people put in the subject line:
"Spoiler: Satire below."

Just a thought.....:)

[chanke4252]

As I said, what the gun actually was, whether it fell within that definition or not, does not matter. It was made to look like an ASSAULT RIFLE. It could have been a water gun and not made a difference, like I said before, and still been just as much of a threat than it would have been if it were a gun that fell within the definition that you just provided. Besides, I'm sure I could find a definition that differs from that. The meaning of words is not static, kind of like sport bike, which is something I hope you could identify with given the topic of this forum.

And again, we do not live in Afghanistan, or some war-torn country where people carrying large weapons in plain sight is a normal thing. Carrying an assault rifle, or something made to look like one, to a function like this falls well outside social norms. This is especially the case because he obviously made a point to bring it for that purpose (the presence of a threatening weapon to highlight an issue). As such it is a threat, practically speaking, regardless of what he was doing with it or what his intentions were. If this were some sort of gun club meeting, or rally related to the specific issue of firearms, this would be TOTALLY different as the make-up of the attendees would obviously be drastically different. However, that is not the case, so the opinions of a relatively small number of gun nuts at the rally do not set the social norm in that situation.

Besides, a holstered handgun is a far cry from a shouldered assault rifle (or look alike) and will be reacted to very differently as a result. This likely has a lot to do with the different roles handguns versus assault rifles fill. Assault rifles are designed to actively kill and wound PEOPLE (at least that is how it is perceived) where as handguns aren't made specifically for that purpose. Why do you think it got so much media attention? It must have been because it was absolutely normal and not threatening at all. Want to change that (how people view assault weapons and look-alikes)? Fine, I'm not opposed, but bringing said weapon or look-alike to a function like this is absolutely not the way to do it and is absolutely socially inappropriate.

Also, similar to your initial insults, your attempts to belittle me and fit me into some simple idea you have of people who disagree with you are neither amusing nor successful. I think most people will interpret being called retarded or stupid as an attempted insult. The fact that you do not seem to understand this and assume that "some people will be insulted no matter what you say" and as such don't need to converse like an adult for some reason doesn't make much credence to the idea that you are a reasonable person who understands the role and effects of social norms. So if you want to talk about the issue, great, but your argument and credibility does not benefit from you being passive aggressive or insulting about it.

I think the next town hall I'm going to kart up a wagon of crazed, though well behaved, knife wielding hobos (assuming the topic isn't the issue of knife wielding hobos). I'm sure nobody will feel threatened by their presence as long as nobody ends up getting stabbed.

[DavidofColorado]

I'm better at insults then being passive agressive. But I don't mind having a conversion about guns and or bikes. They are all the same to me. I don't have a negative connotation about either.
You seem to think that since he brought a gun to a rally that he was going to shoot up the place. Well that doesn't make sense since you know that didn't happen.
There was police and SS there just waiting to pounce the guy if he made a wrong move.
So your strawman argument about having a gun means using it is, wrong. And where one should take their gun is wrong too. It seems that you assume that you know everything about it from what you seen on the news. And that the term assault rifle is interchangeable with any gun scary looking. Its been beat to death trust me on that. But you don't know. I'm sure you are a smart guy and I assume that your aragance is well justified. But you got it wrong this time. So underestimate me and if you want to compare inteligence maybe we can set up a spelling bee or something. But I don't want to think that your a dumbass even though you act like one. That would be small of me. Lets not resort to slinging insults. I don't think your dumb just misinformed.

[chanke4252]

Threat does not necessarily mean that the gun was used, or shot, or aimed, or whatever. It's very presence is intimidating to most people who aren't into guns simply due to it's abnormal presence at that function. And again, it is irrelevant what the gun actually was as whatever it was, even if it wasn't technically an assault rifle by your chosen definition, it was modeled to look like a modern and well known assault rifle, something designed to kill people, which, again, is threatening to most people. It could have been a donut and still been just as intimidating/threatening to most people due to what it looked like.

I can see how someone who is around guns frequently wouldn't find it threatening, nor should they. Kind of like how some people don't find it frightening to be under a car, or leaned over in a turn, or 30 meters under water with a tank of air strapped to their back. But the fact that one person, or a few people, or any small percentage of people within a larger group does not find something frightening or threatening does not set the trend/norm for the group as a whole. So, you, who obviously would not be intimidated by the presence of an assault rifle, or a replica/model of one in public, do not represent the person next to you who has never touched a gun in his/her life. Basically, the issue isn't whether you, David (I assume your name is david), or any other person familiar with guns is intimidated or threatened by the presence of the gun in that situation, it's the group in attendance at that function as a whole was intimidated by the presence of the weapon. Do you think it would have gotten as much media attention if this were an NRA rally? Of course not, and that's exactly why.

Do I think using a gun is wrong? For anything other than self defense (does not include immediate retribution in the face of a threat) or recreation, yes. I am not a fan of open carry either personally (as in for myself), but it is legal in many areas and those who open carry aren't typically the ones who cause problems so I don't really care that much. But in combination with a certain message that people who typically open carry vocalize, it does promote a somewhat reckless mentality imo, as if everyone should open carry. If the vast majority individuals who open carry remain responsible, then I see no reason to address that issue. I personally feel this issue would be best served by pro-firearm organizations promoting responsible gun ownership more than condemning gun control. Lead by example, and this (as in the assault weapon, or assault styled weapon at a town hall for health care) is not a good example to set.

I am not underestimating you, I am just recognizing the fact that you seem unwilling to recognize the role of social norms and how they determine what is and isn't threatening behavior. You obviously know a lot about the specifics guns, and that's fine and a good chunk of worthwhile knowledge. However you seem to be focusing on somewhat minor details (minor in this situation), mainly the mechanics and different definitions of what certain firearms are and aren't, as well as overtly violent behavior (of which there was none in this occasion) rather than passive intentional threats of violence made by intentionally violating in a specific way the rules set by generally accepted social behavior in any given situation.

Also, again with the insults. Basically, here's a guideline you can follow since you apparently either can't help yourself or simply don't know that you continuously make dig after dig after dig. When you use words like "retarded", or "dumbass", or anything else like that, and it is directed at someone, even passively, it's probably an insult of some sort. You likely already know this. I am not insulted by what you have said (I'm a very hard person to insult and take very little personally), just find it irritating trying to treat someone like a big boy in the face of absolute refusal to act like one. So we can just trade insults and digs if you like, I have no problem with that as I have become bored wasting my time otherwise. Also, "arrogance", "intelligence", Your = possession, you're = you are, etc, etc.

If I'm arrogant it must have been all of that book learnin' that made me so.

[DavidofColorado]

Yeah I see your point. If YOU think something is scary than it assaults YOUR senses and thus has no place where YOU don't think it should be. I got you! Some people have a fear of clowns too. Doesn't make em assault clowns. Good thing your not in charge of anything.

Here is some more book learning for you. I hope you take off your rose colored glasses long enough to learn something.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

More can be found here (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=truth+about+assault+weapons&aq=0&aqi=g1&fp=c9fe100d9e542c1e).

Let me just give my worthless opinion of what happened. The guy had balls for doing it. Would I have done the same after giving you the impression of what a progun guy I am? No. I would not have. But I am not condemning the guy for doing it because just like the satire of the OP says whether it was a gun or a copy of the constitution he was with in his rights to do it and you and I shouldn't judge the guy for it. Even though we did, I just had a less biased opinion than you so I didn't come up with unreasonable arguments why he shouldn't.

[chanke4252]

Oh dear Jesus man, you must have some sort of learning disability that prevents you from understanding things like words, concepts and the english language in general. I never said that the fear of a gun had anything to do with it's classification, or non-classification as an assault weapon. Those are totally separate issues.

I guess when you can't say anything of any substance related to the actual topic then you might as well blame someone else for not accepting your totally irrelevant statements as if it is somehow their fault that you are not able to make an even partially sound argument related to the topic at hand. All in all, you've very effectively demonstrated that you are, in fact, a characature of a gun nut, which I think is just fantastic.

There is more to the topic than "Gun go bang, make David happy", or "Zen and the Art of Gun Maintenance", and you are completely out of your gord if you think your swiss cheese words carry any relevant meaning at all. If we were talking about the technical features that make an assault rifle an assault rifle, then maybe they would, but we're not.

And those sites prove my point that there are different definitions based on who is doing the defining. You don't seem to recognize this despite the fact that you try to use it to support your "argument" (if you can consider a relatively unrelated mish mosh of words an argument) and keep reciting the same definition over and over as if it is the only one. I guess you can argue about something (that is irrelevant in the first place) that is defined one way by one group and and another way by another group (technically or "genuinely" versus legally in this case) as if one definition is the only definition, but you might as well be talking about two different things entirely. Legitimate arguments hinge on the usage of common definitions (as in definitions in common) or at least a recognition of other definitions (which there most definitely are) and the subsequent modification of the argument to allow for that. I recognized your definitions and modified my statements to make more sense to you given that you don't seem to be able to understand anything outside your VERY narrow view of things.

Still, even if you had recognized the fact that multiple definitions for many words exist and the definition depeneds on the defining, what has essentially happened is that I've said one thing, and then you responded repeatedly with "I like turtles".

I mean I guess you could have been trying to say that the technical classification of the gun had some bearing on whether or not it was a threat, but people typically define things they aren't intimately familiar with by the popular definitions, which are often different from the technical definitions, so that's kind of absurd too.

However, in an effort to put this "I like turtles" scenario behind us and move on with the conversation, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions:

1. Was the gun in question that is the topic of such recent debate made to look like a popular assault rifle?

2. For an object to be considered threatening to most people in a certain scenario where that object is not usually seen and where the scenario is not populated by individuals with technical knowledge about the object, is it more important that the object fall within a very specific and technical definition of a word, or is it more important that it look like an object that falls within that very specific and technical definition?

[DavidofColorado]

I won't argue this anymore if you don't calm down. Your arguement that a common usage term is absolute is weak. I told you the actually definition and if that is not good enough for you than its really just your problem. You are calling a gun an Assault Rifle when in fact its more like a regular hunting rifle without the wood. I will call my Kawasaki Ninja an acutal rocket since by your thinking its a common term to call a sport bike a crotch rocket.
But enjoy your chesse I hope you come around.

[chanke4252]

I'm calm, just slightly amused that you seem totally unwilling to answer my two very simple questions, and a little amazed that you can't grasp some very simple concepts. Regardless, I laughed. Life was good.

I was NEVER arguing the technical definition of the word "assault rifle". I didn't know what the technical definition of it was previously, but that has absolutely no bearing on my argument at all. I'm glad you informed me of the technical definition though (which I never claimed to know or dispute mind you), learning is fun and all that jazz.

However, practically speaking (if you really want to get into it), there is no "actual" (one true) definition to any given word. Even words for which there are very few definitions, the definitions still change over time. Definitions also change depending on who you are speaking with (the use of the word "transmission" for example). They are for the sake of communication and a common understanding and you need to either use the same definition or modify your argument to account for either or both (which I had done by referring to the weapon as a weapon that looked like an assault rifle), otherwise you are simply not talking about the same thing at all. I'm sorry you don't understand this (the common definition issue), but it's the very basis of logical argument (which I assume you are attempting).

You know shouting meaningless words is fun and all, but doesn't accomplish much. I was just resorting to your style of argument, that being disparaging remarks that serve no purpose other than to try to tear the other person down (for some reason unknown to me). If you want we can talk like grown-ups, but I'm not really keen on the idea of treating you like a big boy if you're going to continuously and so casually toss insults at me for no reason, it's just a waste of effort.

Your call. I'm perfectly happy to do either.

[DavidofColorado]

To answer your questions:

1) IMHO yes. Also no big deal.

2) In the case of the news reporting what they think it is. Its more important to get what it is right. It is less important to take the time after the recording is all done and think of a menacing name for an object. But if facts aren't as important to them (which I don't think they are) then its whatever they want it to be.

And that is what reporting is all about isn't it? Making the story sensational and exciting is better then getting the facts straight.

[chanke4252]

You didn't answer question number 2, at least not the one that I had asked. This question did not have anything to do with news reporters or sensationalizing things in the media by not calling things by their technical names. Try again to answer the question that I had asked and I'll get to one of the points I was making (I'm just trying to go step by step here to avoid confusion).

And yes, I agree with you that news, especially television news, is about ratings more than anything. It's sad, but it's true. However, there has to be something to sensationalize in the first place. So even if it's blown completely out of proportion for the sake of better ratings (as it often is), there is still usually a story buried down in there, even if it isn't the most important story of all time (which it typically isn't). From a point of view with an emphasis on ratings, it doesn't make much sense to report on a more substantial story that you can't blow up.

Television news reporters are parasites, and I don't think I've ever met another type of person that has evoked the "I REALLY want to punch you in the balls simply for being a douchebag" response in person in me quite as much as one of them.

[DavidofColorado]

If you didn't like my answer maybe you could rephrase the question for me? If it helps tell what you want to hear and I will repeat it to you if I agree?

[chanke4252]

I can't currently think of a way of rewording it without changing the topic of the question, which defeats the purpose. I can't really prune anything out because it is all important in order to get a specific, properly directed answer. Maybe I'll be able to think of a new way to word it later if you don't catch my meaning before then.

[DavidofColorado]

1. Was the gun in question that is the topic of such recent debate made to look like a popular assault rifle?

Still yes but its like putting lipstick on a pig.


2. For an object to be considered threatening to most people in a certain scenario where that object is not usually seen and where the scenario is not populated by individuals with technical knowledge about the object,Is there a question in there or are you just loading the question?


is it more important that the object fall within a very specific and technical definition of a wordYes.


, or is it more important that it look like an object that falls within that very specific and technical definition?No.

[chanke4252]

It's not 3 questions, it's one question, and I know how you feel when you break it down that way, but that takes those parts of the question out of context.

I am only loading the question if you feel that objects can not represent a threat. I find this unlikely, so I made an assumption, which may have been incorrect. So I guess I'll ask about that assumption: Is it the case that you don't think the presence of certain objects in certain situations can be threatening?

[TFOGGuys]

Last time I checked, the law didn't specifically guarantee anyone's RIGHT not to be exposed to things (like guns) that make them feel uncomfortable. It does specifically state that the gentleman in question was legally entitled to carry his rifle in an open fashion. Perhaps it is time that we as citizens were made to feel uncomfortable about the oppressive nature of the powers that be forcing their agendas down our throats in the name of "security" or "economic recovery", or "political correctness", or worst of all "think of the children!". Our government has increased the national debt by 15% in a matter of months, mostly to fund pork projects that are short term effects at best. Ben Franklin said " Those that are willing to trade away liberty in the name of security are deserving of neither", and I agree. An individual does NOT have the right to not be offended at the expense of another's right to free speech, self defense, or any of the other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

As to the larger question of whether or not the gentleman in question SHOULD have carried his rifle in this situation, I think it had the desired effect. It sparked controversy and dialog.

[rforsythe]

Besides, a holstered handgun is a far cry from a shouldered assault rifle (or look alike) and will be reacted to very differently as a result. This likely has a lot to do with the different roles handguns versus assault rifles fill. Assault rifles are designed to actively kill and wound PEOPLE (at least that is how it is perceived) where as handguns aren't made specifically for that purpose.

Ok I've tried to stay on the sidelines for most of this, but ... HUH?! Handguns are made for ONE purpose, which is wounding and killing PEOPLE. Not many people go deer hunting with Glocks. I own a handgun myself for two purposes: Target shooting, and defense. I don't know anyone who owns handguns for anything else. On the other hand I know many people who own "intimidating looking" rifles (aka assault rifles) specifically for hunting, because it allows them to carry a lighter, more rugged, more accurate weapon, with more ammunition in a safer manner.

Regarding other comments (I can't find them offhand and don't feel like it) that just because some people who are uneducated on the subject feel intimidated, that it should not be allowed ... well, I personally feel that's a load of complete bullshit. Just because someone is ignorant is not a basis for regulating the actions of everyone else, even if it makes them feel uncomfortable.

In an apples to oranges kind of way, similar issues come up when talking about where you can legally take pictures. Fact is you can legally take (or shoot, to use the parlance of this thread) them just about anywhere, and even publish them just about anywhere with certain exceptions related to commercial use and right-of-likeness, etc. However that doesn't fail to stop ignorant security guards, private business owners, average people, and even cops from continually trying to infringe on photographers' rights just because they feel uncomfortable or intimidated by those photos being taken. That however does not stop it from happening, and hopefully the photographer knows his/her rights well enough to articulate them.

My point here is they are two separate issues, but linked by the concept that either one can make people uncomfortable or scared (particularly those who don't really understand the topic), and that by itself is not a basis for making it wrong or even illegal.

[rforsythe]

As to the larger question of whether or not the gentleman in question SHOULD have carried his rifle in this situation, I think it had the desired effect. It sparked controversy and dialog.

Agreed. More people should exercise their rights, for no other reason than because they can. If simply doing what you're legally allowed to do is enough to make your fellow citizens uncomfortable, than to me that just means more people need to do it, because not enough people really understand what their rights are.

In theory, if people were actually educated on their rights as citizens, this incident should have sparked NO discussion.

[chanke4252]

It sparked controversy and dialogue related to an issue that was irrelevant at the time. It's just more partisan bullshit brought on by right wingers who've listened to too much fox news and need to demonize someone on the left for something that isn't happening. Again, when is this Obama gun grab supposed to happen?

Still, and I've said this before, but there IS a huge massive difference between pure philosophy and how things go down in reality. Yes, in theory we don't have the freedom to not be offended by someone exercising a certain protected right, but in reality when large number of people are offended by something (like smoking in restaurants, bars, sidewalks, almost anywhere in some areas) then it is quickly regulated even if it goes against that basic philosophy. Do you really think that can't happen with guns? Look at DC and what they tried to do there. And now that the lefties are in almost total control, this is NOT the time to start pressing buttons and bringing up typical right vs. left issues that aren't the focus.

People do not live their lives in theory, they live their lives according to common social constructs and norms (in reality). Regardless of whether there is or isn't a political philosophy or historical document that says one thing or another, people will still respond the same way when those norms and constructs are not abided by. It would be different if more people open carried, and open carried assault weapon look-a-likes at that, and that was normal behavior. However, again, the reality of the situation is that those who open carry are definitely in the minority, and honestly if they have any desire to protect their freedoms would best be served by trying to not make waves as long as our govt is controlled by the liberals.

Besides, pissing people off to make a point that doesn't need to be made doesn't make anyone feel sympathetic to the cause. Kind of like how calling someone a name doesn't typically make them suddenly see your point of view (typically it makes them more resistant to do so). Sure, by bringing something that looks like an assault weapon to a town hall meeting you've pointed out and brought attention to the fact that you're allowed to open carry in the area, and that you have the right to bear arms. However, you've also pointed out that you're someone that most people typically don't want at functions of this sort (someone who insists on needlessly displaying your gun for the purpose of letting people know that you have a gun).

Now honestly, regardless of what the basic philosophy says, what do you think will be the realistic result of this sort of behavior? I mean great, you've made a point, but you've encouraged further regulation upon yourself by making that point. Gun regulation has changed greatly over the past 200-some years, some of it things that by some interpretations of the bill of rights shouldn't be allowed to happen. Why do you think that is? Do you think that's just going to stop? Technology changes, behavior changes, interpretation changes, and the bill of rights is interpreted differently because of that, and it's perfectly legal in that case.

People treat the bill of rights like it's indestructible and like the govt. can't walk on it like it's nothing when it REALLY wants to (especially when there is a horrendously strong majority one way or the other), or change how it is interpreted when there is a public interest in doing so. Look at what happened under Bush and tell me that our rights aren't at risk. Yah, keep pressing buttons, great idea.

I guess it comes down to what you consider more important, making a point, or actually protecting your freedoms. To some people making a point is obviously more important, regardless of the outcome or long term ramifications. I personally could give two shits about making a point if it means that I my "protected" freedoms are at greater risk of being taken away from me.

[rforsythe]

You're correct - your rights ARE at risk. To me that means showing what's important to you. Pretending you don't care about it anymore just to avoid making waves is a sure-fire (pun intended) way to lose it.

I don't see what that man did as risking the right to carry a firearm. He did it in a completely passive manner, so passive that he was even allowed near a facility where the President was speaking by the police. Law enforcement had no issue with him being there, just a few uneducated people who thought it was illegal for him to do so, who were educated on law by the police themselves. I find it somewhat ironic then, that you (someone educated on the subject) also doesn't think he should have been there, even if for different reasons.

The people putting your rights in danger are the ones who choose to ignore them or forget about them just so they won't be noticed.

But hey, it's just my opinion versus yours. I really don't give two shits about the partisan liberal vs conservative stuff. However I do agree that the government has attempted to "re-interpret" the Constitution and BoR on occasion, which to me is exactly why exercising your rights in a legal manner is so important. The more people show what is important to them, the more the powers that be will understand that they're going to have a lot of opposition. When people say "aww fuck it, I don't wanna be noticed even if it means forgetting my rights for a time", they lose them.

[chanke4252]

You're correct - your rights ARE at risk. To me that means showing what's important to you. Pretending you don't care about it anymore just to avoid making waves is a sure-fire (pun intended) way to lose it.

I don't see what that man did as risking the right to carry a firearm. He did it in a completely passive manner, so passive that he was even allowed near a facility where the President was speaking by the police. Law enforcement had no issue with him being there, just a few uneducated people who thought it was illegal for him to do so, who were educated on law by the police themselves. I find it somewhat ironic then, that you (someone educated on the subject) also doesn't think he should have been there, even if for different reasons.

The people putting your rights in danger are the ones who choose to ignore them or forget about them just so they won't be noticed.

But hey, it's just my opinion versus yours. I really don't give two shits about the partisan liberal vs conservative stuff. However I do agree that the government has attempted to "re-interpret" the Constitution and BoR on occasion, which to me is exactly why exercising your rights in a legal manner is so important. The more people show what is important to them, the more the powers that be will understand that they're going to have a lot of opposition. When people say "aww fuck it, I don't wanna be noticed even if it means forgetting my rights for a time", they lose them.

I fully agree with the idea that you should defend your rights, but bringing the topic up in an antagonistic way by being intentionally socially inappropriate is not the way to go about it. Again, pissing people off in this way does not make them see your point of view, regardless of the point you are making.

The point at which this would have been appropriate and maybe productive would be when this is the issue on the table and has been brought to the table legitimately or in a non-antagonistic way. Then demonstrations like this I would hope would happen in larger numbers, and the issue of the presence of an assault rifle being interpreted as threat wouldn't really be an issue due to the make-up and mindset of those who would assemble.

I guess what I'm saying is that wanting to exercise your rights doesn't mean that you can venture outside the realm of publicly accepted behavior without people being suspicious or reacting to you negatively. It's legal for me to refuse to change my clothes or shower for 6 months and then ride the light rail, but doing so isn't going to encourage people to respond to me in a positive way, even if I tried to highlight it as a issue of me exercising my rights.

If you want someone to listen to you or legitimately consider your opinion then the best bet is to temper yourself and avoid acting like someone that most people would consider a socially inappropriate, maladjusted kook.

I honestly don't think any of you would do this sort of thing outside the proper venue, other than maybe David (kidding!). I really don't think many people at all (relatively) would do this outside the proper venue. However, this sort of behavior is still applauded by the gun enthusiasts for some reason. I think the handgun open carrying was ok. Unlike an assault weapon, or a weapon that looks like an assault weapon, most handguns sort of send a message more of self defense than they do of some sort of active attack or attempt to kill. Things that look like weapons designed for the purpose of actively killing or wounding people are not the weapons to use to inspire others to jump on board. A shot gun, ok. A hunting rifle, fine.

I personally think the best way to approach this topic (and there are probably better ways than this as well) would be to encourage responsible open carrying and try to widely popularize the idea that it is legal to do so in some areas, and THEN move on to something like a look-a-like of an assault weapon.

[DavidofColorado]

It sparked controversy and dialogue related ....

Sorry I didn't fall into your little pigeon hole ideas about gun owners.

The Bill of Rights in not a joke (even though the book learnin libs think it is) but it is what it is. But what's its not is a philosophical hand job for right wingers either full of absolute rights. It can be changed to suit current events and mood swings of gov. and ingnoreing it is not how its done. You have to vote have a right removed or modified.
Then its up to the courts to interpret it. That is the official and legal way to talk about the rights that we are all given by are creator and not the government. Its acually a bill of limits put on the government not a list of can do's to the people.

But not using your rights is something that too many people do these days and it does weakens the immune system our country enough that a virus like Socialist thought and ooze its way in and spread until the whole body dies. (Like the USSR):hump:

So my conclusion is that you are full of shit. (On this topic only... so far) This is just my red neck unlearned ass here but I call it as I see it. And this is my opinion alone too. Speech is my souls right to breath and it just exhaled a big breath that I was holding. Sorry I don't think any less of you in other ways though. I'm sure you have your faults just like me and good points too. I'm mean if I subscribed to your warp sense of reality I would be all over your nuts because you can spin one tall tale. WOW! Oh and those questions that you asked were so convoluted, vague and ambiguous, that I'm sure you didn't know what you was asking. But I'm not on said nuts and I was offended by what you said, because it attacks something I hold dear. And while I respect your right to speak spin on things you don't have the right to think that your ideas are not up for debate and discrediting. While Assault Weapon, Assault Rifle and the like are generally descriptive of a gun its not accurate and its like calling a black man a "ninja". Its meant to conjure up negative images about it while giving the owner a label of criminal. Sorry bro. I hope we can still be cyber friends.

By the way. Ralph For President!:king::usa::tnator:

[chanke4252]

Sorry I didn't fall into your little pigeon hole ideas about gun owners.

The Bill of Rights in not a joke (even though the book learnin libs think it is) but it is what it is. But what's its not is a philosophical hand job for right wingers either full of absolute rights. It can be changed to suit current events and mood swings of gov. and ingnoreing it is not how its done. You have to vote have a right removed or modified.
Then its up to the courts to interpret it. That is the official and legal way to talk about the rights that we are all given by are creator and not the government. Its acually a bill of limits put on the government not a list of can do's to the people.

But not using your rights is something that too many people do these days and it does weakens the immune system our country enough that a virus like Socialist thought and ooze its way in and spread until the whole body dies. (Like the USSR):hump:

So my conclusion is that you are full of shit. (On this topic only... so far) This is just my red neck unlearned ass here but I call it as I see it. And this is my opinion alone too. Speech is my souls right to breath and it just exhaled a big breath that I was holding. Sorry I don't think any less of you in other ways though. I'm sure you have your faults just like me and good points too. I'm mean if I subscribed to your warp sense of reality I would be all over your nuts because you can spin one tall tale. WOW! Oh and those questions that you asked were so convoluted, vague and ambiguous, that I'm sure you didn't know what you was asking. But I'm not on said nuts and I was offended by what you said, because it attacks something I hold dear. And while I respect your right to speak spin on things you don't have the right to think that your ideas are not up for debate and discrediting. While Assault Weapon, Assault Rifle and the like are generally descriptive of a gun its not accurate and its like calling a black man a "ninja". Its meant to conjure up negative images about it while giving the owner a label of criminal. Sorry bro. I hope we can still be cyber friends.

By the way. Ralph For President!:king::usa::tnator:

Again, that is philosophy. I'm not saying what it should be, I'm saying what it is, as in what it is in practice. And what it is in practice, is open to interpretation and interpreted differently by different people, some of which are right, some of which obviously have ulterior motives. I'm not saying I like the fact that the government can choose to interpret it in a way that may not be in line with its intent when it was written, because I absolutely don't, I'm just saying that's what they do and have done for a long time, and it likely won't change so we have to work with what we have. Either way, this reinterpretation relies on definitions, and definitions are the precise reason why it is open to such wide interpretation. This is the reason that I emphasize using the same definitions and understanding the meaning more than going after someone for not using technical definitions.

The questions were specific and were getting at a point. You decided to play dumb and not understand the wording or something so it defeated the purpose and ceased being productive.

You seemed to have gotten stuck on the "assault rifle" vs. rifle that looks like an "assault rifle" issue. I admit that I capitalized ASSAULT RIFLE in the beginning to piss you off because you had attacked me. However, I gave the assault rifle issue up early as I didn't know the technical definition of assault rifle, and you corrected me, so I began saying "assault rifle look alike" and similar. What I did know is that the weapon shared it's appearance with an well known assault rifle, which is what is important in terms of how it is perceived by the uninitiated, which is what my point focused on in terms of how people determine threats.

However, regardless of my beliefs, or any philosophies to which I subscribe, I think that it is MUCH more important to work within the confines of reality. Typically this means having to make a few compromises while pursuing the desired goal for the sake of making real progress. People seem to think that the pursuit basic philosophies viewed as "right" and "good" means that social graces can go out the window without affecting the chance of success in terms of attaining the desired outcome and have someone give in to your point of view. The thing about this is that our government is run by people, votes are cast by people, laws are enforced by people, regulation is put in place by people, the bill of rights is stomped on by people, and people compromise and will not hesitate to get what they can for themselves (including the "improvement" of society) even if it infringes on the rights of others. As such, we need to pursue our goals (in this case defense of the 2nd amendment as you interpret it, which is the same way I interpret it) as if we are dealing with people if we wish to have any chance of success.

This is why I frown upon someone pursuing a goal while throwing social graces out the window and intentionally going against social norms by bringing a weapon that many people (not including you) associate almost solely with violence due to the way it looks, despite the fact that it probably isn't what it looks like (as you've stated and made very clear). This is what that guy did, and he got a lot of media attention for it, but not the good kind of media attention. IMO it worked against his goal, and it was stupid to think that using that sort of gun for the purpose that he did would have any positive effect in his favor. He would have been better served bringing what would have looked like a shotgun, or a hunting rifle (unscoped preferably, for obvious reasons) given that they are not images associated with the killing of people, which is typically what people trying to implement further firearm gun regulation are striving to avoid (in the wrong way imo).

I see that you are passionate about this topic, and I absolutely respect your point of view in terms of how you expressed it with this last post (clearly and to the point), especially since you've since done away with the insults (which I do appreciate, thanks). I just felt that after your first post, which was an attack on me, that I needed to explain my point of view so that you understood the logic behind it. Our points of view in terms of the basic philosophy are not mutually exclusive, nor are they all that different from one another when it comes down to it.

God, this is getting long.

[dirkterrell]

I fully agree with the idea that you should defend your rights, but bringing the topic up in an antagonistic way by being intentionally socially inappropriate is not the way to go about it. Again, pissing people off in this way does not make them see your point of view, regardless of the point you are making.


Yeah, Rosa Parks really should have given up her seat. She didn't accomplish anything constructive.

Dirk

[The Black Knight]

i kinda wonder about that one since here is the def of terrorism.

"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes"

and since he said this "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time" i think most of us know that rest of that quote.


I think he would be considered a terrorist.
Then so would our founding fathers....


its a case of him using his second amendment right to infringe on their first amendment right. most people dont feel comfortable speaking their mind when and guy on the other side of the argument has a ar-15 strapped to his back. personally i dont feel firearms should be aloud at political events.
Well if you believe that firearms shouldn't be allowed at Political events, that's fine. I believe Politicians shouldn't be allowed at political events but then again to me the only thing worse than a politician is a child molester.

Oh and if people don't feel comfortable speaking their minds with someone who has a holstered weapon on their hip, my advice would be. Grow a set...


Intentionally carrying a weapon that wouldn't normally be carried at such events is simply someone trying to provoke a response by intentional pressing the envelope by intentionally doing something that they know could be viewed as a threat of some sort.

The best way to push the gun issue towards people pushing even further gun control is to make gun owners seem like half-retarded dipshits who are careless with their weapons. I'm sorry to say this (not really), but if you're going to bring an assault rifle to a function like this (considering the people in attendance) that is covering a completely different issue then you are a thoughtless moron and shouldn't be allowed to own a gun, period.

So you're the end all in deciding what kind of people should be allowed to carry or own firearms? Because it seems to me that when you go out in public you don't check your First Amendment at the door, when you leave your home. So why should you check your Second Amendment???

Just because someone exercised their "RIGHT" doesn't mean you can rebuke them for it. Especially when it was done in a peaceful manner. I can see getting hot under the collar if he were waving the gun around like a madman. However, it was slung over his shoulder the way you're supposed to carry a rifle and it didn't move from that position. So I don't see what the big deal is.

Then again having grown up around firearms my whole life, seeing someone going "open carry" doesn't bother me in the least. Especially if it's in their holster or slung over their shoulder. To me it's just another citizen being able to do what the Bill of Rights guarantees them the right to do.

[chanke4252]

Yeah, Rosa Parks really should have given up her seat. She didn't accomplish anything constructive.

Dirk

Are you really comparing this to rosa parks? rosa parks made a stand on an issue that was very relevant at the time. She did not go out of her way to go to a public function for the sake of some half-baked and poorly thought out stunt that did nothing but add a further negative connotation to something that people were already doing at that function (ie. open carry).

[The Black Knight]

Are you really comparing this to rosa parks? rosa parks made a stand on an issue that was very relevant at the time. She did not go out of her way to go to a public function for the sake of some half-baked and poorly thought out stunt that did nothing but add a further negative connotation to something that people were already doing at that function (ie. open carry).
I believe Dirk was drawing the correlation between the two. Rosa Parks stood for something she believe in and so did the guy with the firearms at the rally.

Regardless if it's an exact comparo, it's still a comparo based on the fact that they both stood up for something they believe in and something that was important. Civil rights were just as important to Rosa Parks as the Right To Keep And Bear Arms are to this guy and many other Americans in the US.

The objectives were/are different but the initiative shown by both is genuine and if you can't conclude that on your own, then I don't know how to explain it better for you.

[chanke4252]

So you're the end all in deciding what kind of people should be allowed to carry or own firearms? Because it seems to me that when you go out in public you don't check your First Amendment at the door, when you leave your home. So why should you check your Second Amendment???

Just because someone exercised their "RIGHT" doesn't mean you can rebuke them for it. Especially when it was done in a peaceful manner. I can see getting hot under the collar if he were waving the gun around like a madman. However, it was slung over his shoulder the way you're supposed to carry a rifle and it didn't move from that position. So I don't see what the big deal is.

Then again having grown up around firearms my whole life, seeing someone going "open carry" doesn't bother me in the least. Especially if it's in their holster or slung over their shoulder. To me it's just another citizen being able to do what the Bill of Rights guarantees them the right to do.

Yes, because I absolutely said I was the "end all" :roll:.

As far as what is done in a peaceful manner, that's fine but if you call carrying something that looks like an assault rifle to a function on a completely different issue being attended by the president peaceful, then you obviously only understand aggression or threats as they stand after a blow is actually struck. Again, it's not about the bill of rights or some philosophy, it's about social norms and how behavior will be generally interpreted by most or many people at the function.

If you saw a man standing in front of your house staring at your house with the same type of gun slung over his shoulder, would you consider that threatening? It's not overtly threatening behavior, but it is generally going to be something interpreted as threatening simply due to the unusual inclusion of a weapon that signifies violence (due to the appearance it shares with a weapon intended to be used almost solely on people). How do you think the secret service or Obama would interpret it given that there HAVE been presidential assassinations by firearm in the past? God, why was an open carrier arrested in the first place? His firearm was viewed as a threat.

Some of you guys seem completely unable to step outside yourself for a moment and think about something through the eyes of someone who doesn't have the exposure that you have (which is most people). I suppose maybe that's a side effect of such a greater amount of exposure to firearms.

Philosophy is great, but if you can't make the transition from philosophy to a practical application within the context of reality then it's relatively worthless.

[dirkterrell]

Are you really comparing this to rosa parks? rosa parks made a stand on an issue that was very relevant at the time. She did not go out of her way to go to a public function for the sake of some half-baked and poorly thought out stunt that did nothing but add a further negative connotation to something that people were already doing at that function (ie. open carry).

Read your comment that I quoted and think about it in terms of Rosa Parks.

Dirk

[The Black Knight]

Yes, because I absolutely said I was the "end all" :roll:.

As far as what is done in a peaceful manner, that's fine but if you call carrying something that looks like an assault rifle to a function on a completely different issue being attended by the president peaceful, then you obviously only understand aggression or threats as they stand after a blow is actually struck. Again, it's not about the bill of rights, it's about social norms and how behavior will be generally interpreted by most or many people at the function.

If you saw a man standing in front of your house staring at your house with the same type of gun slung over his shoulder, would you consider that threatening? It's not overtly threatening behavior, but it is generally going to be something interpreted as threatening simply due to the unusual nature of the behavior and the unusual inclusion of a weapon that signifies violence (due to the appearance it shares with a weapon intended to be used almost solely on people).

Some of you guys have your heads shoved so far up your asses and seem completely unable to step outside yourself for a moment and think about something through the eyes of someone who doesn't have the exposure that you have (which is most people). I suppose maybe that's a side effect of such a greater amount of exposure to firearms.
I see nothing wrong with a man attending a meeting that the President was at. Why?? because he did nothing violent or threatening.

See you're ticked that he took the gun to where the President was at. That's fine, I'm sure the President was ticked off to. But the reality is, just because you're the President or you're ticked off because someone did this in the presence of the President. Doesn't mean they are in the wrong for exercising their own rights. It means, that if they broke no laws, then you need to just suck it up and deal with it(and that refers to both you and the President or anyone else).

I'll have to be honest with you. I do only understand aggression or hostility after a blow has been struck. Why?? because until someone actually commits to the act of violence, they are just running their mouth or shooting off hot air. You can't go around putting people in jail just because they call you an asshole. Same reason you can't throw someone in jail for bringing an AR15 to a political demonstration.

As for your hypothetical scenario of a man standing out in front of my home with a gun. Would I be alarmed?? not really, because if he's just standing there with the gun over his shoulder. There's not much I can do. He's legal to stand in the street with a weapon as long as he's not committing a crime.

Would I keep an eye on the guy?? You bet, but until he commits to an actual act of aggression or violence, I can't do a thing about it. However, the only caveat to your situation is that standing out in front of someone's home with a firearm staring could be construed as "menacing" only because it's in front of someone's home. A political rally in "public" is not menacing, standing in front of someone's residence with a firearm "is" however.

Again though, until someone actually commits to the said offense, there isn't much you can do about it. Because their Rights are their Rights.

Oh and to finish off your hypothetical scenario of a man standing in front of my home with a AR15. It's be more than happy to oblige in staring back at him, holding my AR15 or my 7 mag, or the many host of other firearms I own. Just because someone wants to sit out in front of my home with a firearm and stare, wouldn't stop me front returning the favor from my front porch with my AR15 in hand. :)

As far as your comment about us having our heads up our asses. Well I can't speak for everyone else, but I know personally that I don't want to step out and view things as someone else. Because for me driving down the road and seeing a guy walking down the street with an AR15 over his shoulder or a pistol in it's holster is completely normal to me. However, driving down the road and seeing two guys buttf**king each other is on the other hand, completely abnormal to me. But I guess I'm different that way.

[chanke4252]

I believe Dirk was drawing the correlation between the two. Rosa Parks stood for something she believe in and so did the guy with the firearms at the rally.

Regardless if it's an exact comparo, it's still a comparo based on the fact that they both stood up for something they believe in and something that was important. Civil rights were just as important to Rosa Parks as the Right To Keep And Bear Arms are to this guy and many other Americans in the US.

The objectives were/are different but the initiative shown by both is genuine and if you can't conclude that on your own, then I don't know how to explain it better for you.

I understand that he was trying to stand up for something he believes in and that it is similar to the rosa parks issue in that regard. However, the issue isn't him standing up for it, it's the approach with which he did it, which was very different in approach from Rosa Parks.

His method absolutely involved being intentionally threatening due to the choice of weapon he brought along and the venue to which he brought it. If it were an anti-gun rally, or an NRA rally of some sort, it would have been ok, but he chose to bring it to a town hall meeting about a completely unrelated topic attended by the president.

Comparing that to someone sitting on a bus and not moving (something that doesn't include a violence related/threatening element) is kind of absurd.

[chanke4252]

I see nothing wrong with a man attending a meeting that the President was at. Why?? because he did nothing violent or threatening.

See you're ticked that he took the gun to where the President was at. That's fine, I'm sure the President was ticked off to. But the reality is, just because you're the President or you're ticked off because someone did this in the presence of the President. Doesn't mean they are in the wrong for exercising their own rights. It means, that if they broke no laws, then you need to just suck it up and deal with it(and that refers to both you and the President or anyone else).

I'll have to be honest with you. I do only understand aggression or hostility after a blow has been struck. Why?? because until someone actually commits to the act of violence, they are just running their mouth or shooting off hot air. You can't go around putting people in jail just because they call you an asshole. Same reason you can't throw someone in jail for bringing an AR15 to a political demonstration.

As for your hypothetical scenario of a man standing out in front of my home with a gun. Would I be alarmed?? not really, because if he's just standing there with the gun over his shoulder. There's not much I can do. He's legal to stand in the street with a weapon as long as he's not committing a crime.

Would I keep an eye on the guy?? You bet, but until he commits to an actual act of aggression or violence, I can't do a thing about it. However, the only caveat to your situation is that standing out in front of someone's home with a firearm staring could be construed as "menacing" only because it's in front of someone's home. A political rally in "public" is not menacing, standing in front of someone's residence with a firearm "is" however.

Again though, until someone actually commits to the said offense, there isn't much you can do about it. Because their Rights are their Rights.

Oh and to finish off your hypothetical scenario of a man standing in front of my home with a AR15. It's be more than happy to oblige in staring back at him, holding my AR15 or my 7 mag, or the many host of other firearms I own. Just because someone wants to sit out in front of my home with a firearm and stare, wouldn't stop me front returning the favor from my front porch with my AR15 in hand. :)

As far as your comment about us having our heads up our asses. Well I can't speak for everyone else, but I know personally that I don't want to step out and view things as someone else. Because for me driving down the road and seeing a guy walking down the street with an AR15 over his shoulder or a pistol in it's holster is completely normal to me. However, driving down the road and seeing two guys buttf**king each other is on the other hand, completely abnormal to me. But I guess I'm different that way.

Again, I'm not talking about legalities.

In your response to the man with the gun outside your home, you are simply trading passive threat for passive threat. It's almost proving my point. That sort of behavior is a threat when looked at within the context of what is socially acceptable and unacceptable to most people. Laws have nothing to do with it. I keep saying this but people apparently keep missing it.

Also, I understand that YOU don't find it threatening, and that would be relevant if you were the only one who determined acceptable behavior in public, or if the police asked you if it were threatening before arresting the man. It's not an issue of individuals who have more exposure than normal. They arrested him for a reason, and that was because he was participating in abnormal behavior (abnormal to most people) that was obviously considered a threat given the responses he got.

For some reason the response I keep getting is essentially "I don't find it threatening, there for it necessarily must not be threatening to anyone else".

[The Black Knight]

I understand that he was trying to stand up for something he believes in and that it is similar to the rosa parks issue in that regard. However, the issue isn't him standing up for it, it's the approach with which he did it, which was very different in approach from Rosa Parks.

His method absolutely involved being intentionally threatening due to the choice of weapon he brought along and the venue to which he brought it. If it were an anti-gun rally, or an NRA rally of some sort, it would have been ok, but he chose to bring it to a town hall meeting about a completely unrelated topic attended by the president.

Comparing that to someone sitting on a bus and not moving (something that doesn't include a violence related/threatening element) is kind of absurd.
I don't know, but in Rosa Parks situation there was definitely a chance for violence or provocation of violence. However, it would have come from the opposition as she was sitting in a "White" area of the bus. You don't think that wouldn't have provoke violence back then??

If anything Rosa Parks stand on the bus was completely about violence. Because she made a stand against the violence and hatred towards Black people. He act she made was based solely on the reaction of others and she knew the consequences of such action as it could have been with violence or worse.

[chanke4252]

I see nothing wrong with a man attending a meeting that the President was at. Why?? because he did nothing violent or threatening.

See you're ticked that he took the gun to where the President was at. That's fine, I'm sure the President was ticked off to. But the reality is, just because you're the President or you're ticked off because someone did this in the presence of the President. Doesn't mean they are in the wrong for exercising their own rights. It means, that if they broke no laws, then you need to just suck it up and deal with it(and that refers to both you and the President or anyone else).

I'll have to be honest with you. I do only understand aggression or hostility after a blow has been struck. Why?? because until someone actually commits to the act of violence, they are just running their mouth or shooting off hot air. You can't go around putting people in jail just because they call you an asshole. Same reason you can't throw someone in jail for bringing an AR15 to a political demonstration.

As for your hypothetical scenario of a man standing out in front of my home with a gun. Would I be alarmed?? not really, because if he's just standing there with the gun over his shoulder. There's not much I can do. He's legal to stand in the street with a weapon as long as he's not committing a crime.

Would I keep an eye on the guy?? You bet, but until he commits to an actual act of aggression or violence, I can't do a thing about it. However, the only caveat to your situation is that standing out in front of someone's home with a firearm staring could be construed as "menacing" only because it's in front of someone's home. A political rally in "public" is not menacing, standing in front of someone's residence with a firearm "is" however.

Again though, until someone actually commits to the said offense, there isn't much you can do about it. Because their Rights are their Rights.

Oh and to finish off your hypothetical scenario of a man standing in front of my home with a AR15. It's be more than happy to oblige in staring back at him, holding my AR15 or my 7 mag, or the many host of other firearms I own. Just because someone wants to sit out in front of my home with a firearm and stare, wouldn't stop me front returning the favor from my front porch with my AR15 in hand. :)

As far as your comment about us having our heads up our asses. Well I can't speak for everyone else, but I know personally that I don't want to step out and view things as someone else. Because for me driving down the road and seeing a guy walking down the street with an AR15 over his shoulder or a pistol in it's holster is completely normal to me. However, driving down the road and seeing two guys buttf**king each other is on the other hand, completely abnormal to me. But I guess I'm different that way.

Again, I'm not talking about legalities.

In your response to the man with the gun outside your home, you are simply trading passive threat for passive threat. It's almost proving my point. That sort of behavior is a threat when looked at within the context of what is socially acceptable and unacceptable to most people. Laws have nothing to do with it. I keep saying this but people apparently keep missing it.

Also, I understand that YOU don't find it threatening, and that would be relevant if you were the only one who determined acceptable behavior in public, or if the police asked you if it were threatening before arresting the man. It's not an issue of individuals who have more exposure than normal. They arrested him for a reason, and that was because he was participating in abnormal behavior (abnormal to most people) that was obviously considered a threat given the responses he got.

For some reason the response I keep getting is essentially "I don't find it threatening, there for it necessarily must not be threatening to anyone else". "menacing" and "threatening" are very subjective terms, but it's pretty easy to see how it is viewed by most people even if you only look at the media coverage it got and the types of responses the open carriers got in the crowd.

[chanke4252]

I don't know, but in Rosa Parks situation there was definitely a chance for violence or provocation of violence. However, it would have come from the opposition as she was sitting in a "White" area of the bus. You don't think that wouldn't have provoke violence back then??

If anything Rosa Parks stand on the bus was completely about violence. Because she made a stand against the violence and hatred towards Black people. He act she made was based solely on the reaction of others and she knew the consequences of such action as it could have been with violence or worse.

You are trying to equate potentially being the victim of violence to being the perpetrator of a violent threat (passive or otherwise). They are not the same. It's like saying nonviolent protests are actually threats of violence because others may act violently towards them.

[dirkterrell]

Comparing that to someone sitting on a bus and not moving (something that doesn't include a violence related/threatening element) is kind of absurd.

Rosa Parks was "antagonistic" and "socially inappropriate." She was incredibly threatening to the racist status quo.

Dirk

[The Black Knight]

You are trying to equate potentially being the victim of violence to being the perpetrator of a violent threat (passive or otherwise). They are not the same.

:mwave:

I give up with you man...

[DavidofColorado]

Rosa parks was a pioneer in the civil rights movement that gets blacks special treatment. Even mentioning a black person did something will get you called a racists and that is the worse thing you can do if your worried about what others think. Bringing a gun to a rally could be the beginning of a watershed event like Rosa Parks was. Maybe one day all the little boys and girls can be judged not by the color of their rifle or how they hold it but by the content of their character. I have a dream.

Ironically gun control started off a rasists law to keep black folk from owning guns. Its roots are closely related.

[DavidofColorado]

I just checked norms and mores and none of them mentioned carrying a gun is socially unacceptable.
http://www.tomcravens.com/norms.html

[TFOGGuys]

Are you really comparing this to rosa parks? rosa parks made a stand on an issue that was very relevant at the time. She did not go out of her way to go to a public function for the sake of some half-baked and poorly thought out stunt that did nothing but add a further negative connotation to something that people were already doing at that function (ie. open carry).

At what point do we get to prioritize the rights of others and decide that, because it's not the issue the government thinks is the MOST URGENT CRISIS OF OUR TIMES(for the next 15 minutes, anyway), somehow those rights are irrelevant and inappropriate to express and exercise? If I should somehow subjugate my rights for the comfort of others, how long is it before that applies to free speech, freedom of (or FROM) religion, freedom of assembly, or any of the other rights most take for granted? Ms Parks stood up for her rights at a time and place when it was inappropriate by the standards of the day, at great personal risk. Who gets to decide when MY rights are to be abridged?

[t_jolt]

His method absolutely involved being intentionally threatening due to the choice of weapon he brought along and the venue to which he brought it. If it were an anti-gun rally, or an NRA rally of some sort, it would have been ok, but he chose to bring it to a town hall meeting about a completely unrelated topic attended by the president.


I've been lurking on this thread and i have only one question.
Point me out the law that he broke. Im tired of reading how much of a dumb shit blah blah blah, just like when people talk about squids with no gear. until someone can point to a law that he broke. Doesnt matter if we like it or not, he did nothing wrong legally.

[salsashark]

I've been lurking on this thread and i have only one question.
Point me out the law that he broke. Im tired of reading how much of a dumb shit blah blah blah, just like when people talk about squids with no gear. until someone can point to a law that he broke. Doesnt matter if we like it or not, he did nothing wrong legally.

How dare you come in here with your "logic" and "reason". This thread has no place for that kind of "rational thinking"!!!

[TFOGGuys]

You are trying to equate potentially being the victim of violence to being the perpetrator of a violent threat (passive or otherwise). They are not the same. It's like saying nonviolent protests are actually threats of violence because others may act violently towards them.

Your perception is of a passive threat, therefore you deem it inappropriate. Would you feel the same if a carpenter had shown up to the event with a hammer (quite capable of being used for violence) hanging from his belt? What about the hatchets that roofers use? Again it's perception. Some might think my pocket knife is a weapon, I think of it only as a useful tool. Just because someone perceives it as a threat, does that mean I should forgo the day to day carriage of a very useful tool?

[Geology Rocks]

Joe

[TFOGGuys]

How dare you come in here with your "logic" and "reason". This thread has no place for that kind of "rational thinking"!!!

Logic and reason are the last resort of the rational thinker, and obviously have no place in civilized name calling and insults. Barn Him !

[TFOGGuys]

I contacted my sister who is an agent for the pres...and she didnt seem to concerned.

My comment is this....The guns we need to worry about are not the ones openly strapped to someones hip.

joe

I would add that legally carried concealed weapons are not really a threat either, based on what the requirements are for a permit in the first place.

[Geology Rocks]

I would add that legally carried concealed weapons are not really a threat either, based on what the requirements are for a permit in the first place.

correct

joe

[DavidofColorado]

How dare you come in here with your "logic" and "reason". This thread has no place for that kind of "rational thinking"!!!
+1 think thread has lost all hostility for me. I don't know if I can go on with it now. Thanks Tyrel.:banghead:

[chanke4252]

Rosa Parks was "antagonistic" and "socially inappropriate." She was incredibly threatening to the racist status quo.

Dirk

you can word it how you want, but her actions did not include threats of physical violence in any form. Threats being subjective and definitely passive in this case. It is obvious that many of you wouldn't be threatened by something like this, nor should you given your circumstances and exposure.


I just checked norms and mores and none of them mentioned carrying a gun is socially unacceptable.
http://www.tomcravens.com/norms.html

It is going to be difficult to quantify something that is very subjective in nature and depends entirely on the situation and make up of the crowd. I mean I guess there are a few things that are pretty stable from situation to situation (like wiping your ass, and not stabbing people), but this is not among them obviously. Something that is socially acceptable in backwoods Louisiana may not be acceptable in downtown Denver. This is why I made mention of the NRA rally or town hall specifically related to guns (rather than healthcare) and how his choice of weapons probably wouldn't have attracted any negative attention an event like that.


Rosa parks was a pioneer in the civil rights movement that gets blacks special treatment. Even mentioning a black person did something will get you called a racists and that is the worse thing you can do if your worried about what others think. Bringing a gun to a rally could be the beginning of a watershed event like Rosa Parks was. Maybe one day all the little boys and girls can be judged not by the color of their rifle or how they hold it but by the content of their character. I have a dream.

Ironically gun control started off a racist law to keep black folk from owning guns. Its roots are closely related.

I agree with it in theory in regards to the defense of the issue, I just don't agree with the way that guy specifically did it in regards to his weapon of choice given the venue (which is why I think he was a moron). I think that is largely the reason it got the reaction that it did and that it would have. It is interesting that they are related though, I didn't know that gun control laws had a basis in race at one point.

I think those open carrying properly holstered handguns were fine, and made a good statement given that they did not portray or associate themselves with criminals or violence. The type of holster and the visibility of the handgun that is commonly associated with responsible handguns is much different than would-be criminals. I think something like a typical shotgun or even hunting rifle (unscoped preferably given the venue) would have been ok as well and not sent a passive threat. The problem with something that looks like an assault rifle, especially something that looks like this assault rifle, is that it conjures up relatively vivid images of violence, which is not the type of image that gun owners want to associate with their cause. Didn't the DC sniper use some sort of AR15 as well? It's just a dumb image to associate with the issue, kind of how associating a mac10 or some cheap thug knockoff isn't the sort of image you want to attach to the issue.

[chanke4252]

I contacted my sister who is an agent for the pres...and she didnt seem to concerned.

My comment is this....The guns we need to worry about are not the ones openly strapped to someones hip.

joe

I agree, except the rifle wasn't strapped to his hip, nor was it something that is something that people can associate with responsible gun ownership as most responsible gun owners don't tote their assault rifle look-alikes out in public, especially to a function of this sort. I'm not saying that toting a rifle like this out in public (in other situations) is necessarily indicative of irresponsible gun ownership either, nor I'm not saying it's illegal, just that it is not necessarily indicative of a responsible owner like a properly holstered handgun is, which is the image that gun owners would be best served portraying.

[chanke4252]

I've been lurking on this thread and i have only one question.
Point me out the law that he broke. Im tired of reading how much of a dumb shit blah blah blah, just like when people talk about squids with no gear. until someone can point to a law that he broke. Doesnt matter if we like it or not, he did nothing wrong legally.

I specifically stated multiple times that I wasn't talking about laws as you are talking about them. I am however talking about accepted social behavior and informal SOCIAL laws that vary from situation to situation. It's kind of like how you probably shouldn't try to knowingly sell cigarettes at a support group for people with lung cancer. No it's not illegal, yes it likely violates what would commonly be acceptable social behavior in that scenario.

I am NOT saying that there should be some sort of legal backlash because of this occurrence, as there absolutely should NOT be. However, the likelihood of there being one anyway, in spite of the fact that no laws were broken, is only increased due to the socially inappropriate and not popularly acceptable nature of his statement. Kind of like squids. Sure it's legal to be a squid, but it also pisses a lot of people off for various reasons which is why there is a push for gear laws. It doesn't matter if we are talking about protected behavior because society is typically the force that determines how things are going to be interpreted.

Yes, your statement is one based in common sense, however common sense as it applies to the philosophy and letter of the law. I would hope that we all know that the letter of the law often differs (even just slightly) from the reality of a situation, the reality of the situation being something that can most definitely be affected by social behavior and opinions that may not coincide with the basic philosophy and how it was previously interpreted. This is what I am trying to emphasize.

I hope that makes sense.

[DavidofColorado]

you can word it how you want, but her actions did not include threats of physical violence in any form. Threats being subjective and definitely passive in this case. It is obvious that many of you wouldn't be threatened by something like this, nor should you given your circumstances and exposure.



It is going to be difficult to quantify something that is very subjective in nature and depends entirely on the situation and make up of the crowd. I mean I guess there are a few things that are pretty stable from situation to situation (like wiping your ass, and not stabbing people), but this is not among them obviously. Something that is socially acceptable in backwoods Louisiana may not be acceptable in downtown Denver. This is why I made mention of the NRA rally or town hall specifically related to guns (rather than healthcare) and how his choice of weapons probably wouldn't have attracted any negative attention an event like that.



I agree with it in theory in regards to the defense of the issue, I just don't agree with the way that guy specifically did it in regards to his weapon of choice given the venue (which is why I think he was a moron). I think that is largely the reason it got the reaction that it did and that it would have. It is interesting that they are related though, I didn't know that gun control laws had a basis in race at one point.

I think those open carrying properly holstered handguns were fine, and made a good statement given that they did not portray or associate themselves with criminals or violence. The type of holster and the visibility of the handgun that is commonly associated with responsible handguns is much different than would-be criminals. I think something like a typical shotgun or even hunting rifle (unscoped preferably given the venue) would have been ok as well and not sent a passive threat. The problem with something that looks like an assault rifle, especially something that looks like this assault rifle, is that it conjures up relatively vivid images of violence, which is not the type of image that gun owners want to associate with their cause. Didn't the DC sniper use some sort of AR15 as well? It's just a dumb image to associate with the issue, kind of how associating a mac10 or some cheap thug knockoff isn't the sort of image you want to attach to the issue.
While you seem to assume that everyone at or should go to an Obama rally is going to be antigun and going to get livid at someone taking a gun there. You can't prove that to be true. I think that everyone in Arizona likes guns (except the criminals) and don't mind them one bit. But chances are it was somewhere in between (just like life) and there was some anti-gun types and pro-gun peeps. I think if you take the former one and mix in some hoplophobia you get a person that thinks it was wrong to bring a gun to health care rally. If you get the latter peeps mix in some incredably huge nuts and bringing a gun to a presidential town hall meeting it might be the best time to get his attention and show him that his anti-gun ideas are not just going effect some hidden minority or fantacy criminal element in society. Well you get this situation happening.

But now I hear that the anti-gun gun-grabbers are fighting back. They aren't going to take this disobediance from the little people. This was unexpected and they need to feel like they are still in absolute power and protected from common mouth breathers in the real world.
Hoplophobia is contagious

D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is so offended by the peaceful political free speech of gun rights activists at Obama town hall meetings that she wants to ban all guns around the President.

Next on Norton's list of "expiring" Constitutional rights?

Due process.

You can read the details in all their free-speech-hating glory on the blog here (http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/ct/3329787:4639316984:m:1:159244019:E6B68BFA75D8F894B 9ECDC67EE1301C1).

[DavidofColorado]

I agree, except the rifle wasn't strapped to his hip, nor was it something that is something that people can associate with responsible gun ownership as most responsible gun owners don't tote their assault rifle look-alikes out in public, especially to a function of this sort. I'm not saying that toting a rifle like this out in public (in other situations) is necessarily indicative of irresponsible gun ownership either, nor I'm not saying it's illegal, just that it is not necessarily indicative of a responsible owner like a properly holstered handgun is, which is the image that gun owners would be best served portraying.

HE SAID THAT HE KNOWS SOMEONE CLOSE TO THE PRES.... Are you questioning one of the ones minions? Question one of the Obamalamadingdong's lackys is like questioning the one himself. Tisk, tisk, I thought you were a believer someone who like to blog about your idea's.

But you don't speak for every gun owner. I don't think you can speak as one gun owner. Throwing a rifle owner under bus just for the handgun owner is wrong. If a self loading rifle bothers you that much maybe you should crawl into a hole and maybe you will avoid ever having to look at one again and you can tell yourself its gone. But if you have other stuff to do. You could shoot an AR-15 then you could talk intelligently about them. Then maybe you wouldn't mind so much if someone brings a lawfully owned gun to a peaceful rally and exercise his constitutionally protected rights. And those that don't like it can STFU.

[chanke4252]

When attempting to make generalizations about a larger group, I typically do not base those generalizations on what was told to me about a single member of that group told to me in the 3rd person from some guy on an online forum

Also, for some reason there is a widespread assumption here that just because I am emphasizing that tact and social context are important in regards to influencing the end result of an issue like this (regardless of what the letter of the law is), that I must be anti-gun and believe that everyone or most people are anti-gun. Honestly, I have no idea where this conclusion came from, nor can I figure out what logical leap some of you seem to have made to get there.

Does someone suggesting a tactful, strategic approach rather than encouraging a thoughtless, "scream your point of view and hope others will magically change their minds" approach really make you so angry? Do you really believe that social tact can be thrown out the window and that you will be seen as a normal, well adjusted person rather than a kook? Do you really think that laws and informal social expectations are not connected to one another?

The conclusion that I am starting to arrive at is that some of you would rather dig a hole and keep filling it in by irrationally antagonizing the gun grabbers (with socially inappropriate behavior) and then defending yourself against an irrational response, than you would defend your position and try to ensure that it will remain safe in the future. Yes, antagonistic behavior is wonderful. Look how well it is working out for North Korea.



Here are some other assumptions that seem to be being made here by some of you that are terribly false:

There is the assumption that I am trying to speak for gun owners or enthusiasts. I am not, and I never have been.

There is the assumption that I seem to be trying to say that everyone (or everyone at the town hall) is anti-gun. This couldn't be further from the truth.

There is the assumption that because I am trying to check my (relatively little) experience at the door and try to understand the feelings that someone might have about certain types of guns due to the fact that they have had little 1st hand exposure and experience with them that I must be one of those people and hold those same feelings and ideas and hold that same level of experience/exposure. This is incorrect.

There is the assumption that because I don't own any guns currently that I am anti-gun in some way. I am not, I just prefer to spend my money on other things that I enjoy more and I don't feel the need to own a gun to defend myself.

There is the assumption that I have never fired a gun. I have fired a number of guns in the past and I enjoyed it. My brother is an avid gun collector and I have fired a few of his guns, including a semi auto AK47 a few years back. I also used to work for a sheriff's department and on a number of occasions had the chance to do some range shooting at the academy with their sigs. I was very close to purchasing a 92f for range shooting a few years ago, though decided that I'd rather get a new snowboard.

There is the assumption that I don't understand the bill of rights and that gun ownership is a protected right as it is currently interpreted. I do.



Basically, what do you honestly think I have been trying to say? I'm genuinely curious because it seems absolutely absurd to me that my words are being interpreted as some sort of attack on the bill of rights or your right to bear arms. If you want you tell me what I've been trying to say, I'll be glad to correct you if you have misunderstood, which is very likely. Of course, that is working under the assumption that you have any desire to understand, which I am seriously beginning to doubt. I make this assumption because I try to give the benefit of the doubt when possible rather than assume people are just unwilling or even incapable of understanding certain concepts. I genuinely hope you do not prove my assumption incorrect.

So answer me this question, are you actually trying to understand what I am saying and what I have said? Because if you aren't trying or even willing to understand what I have said (please realize that understand does not mean agree), then this is a pointless conversation. However, if that is the case then that doesn't bode well for the likelihood of you having any positive impact in regards to furthering your chosen cause either, which is unfortunate. Conversations where people are, for whatever reason, talking AT one another rather than listening, understanding, and responding directly are rarely productive.

I like to argue and debate, especially things I feel reasonably strongly about. However it loses it's appeal and becomes rather boring to me when the people with whom I am debating do not understand how to read arguments or respond logically and directly to those arguments (or worse, are unwilling to do so). I don't even necessarily like winning debates. I like to have my mind changed and to test my own beliefs, and it is impossible to do so lacking a logical counterargument, which (even further) is impossible without the other party understanding my argument in the first place.

[DavidofColorado]

There is a fine line your walking with being antigun. Some of the things you say make be think you are hopping on both sides of it.
A good gun debate is never a waste of time. IMO. Just because I don't take your side please don't think I don't understand it or I don't care. You couldn't be further from the truth I do understand it.... But it does not compute as far a what I consider reasonable so I don't care for it.
You think that an AR-15 not good in anyway. Well I held 2 guys off in my house once with an unloaded one. I would carry it everywhere with me if I could these days. But a hand gun seems better most of the time. And carrying a cop is just to heavy so I don't do that either.

I don't think it was a social pho pah and I don't think I ever will. Let every one carry them and let freedom ring. My AR is down at the moment so its nothing but AK's for me.