We'll try something different today. Below is an article from the Associated Press about protesters who have gathered outside appearances by President Barack Obama while openly carrying guns. What do you think of this trend? Is it a peaceful exercise of a person's rights, or a serious incident waiting to happen?
Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
By AMANDA LEE MYERS and TERRY TANG, Associated Press Writers
PHOENIX (AP) -- About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday -- the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.
The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.
Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who monitored the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.
"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends."
Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.
"It's a political statement," he told The Boston Globe. "If you don't use your rights, then you lose your rights."
Police asked the man to move away from school property, but he was not arrested.
Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend.
"When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance," Solop said. "It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication."
He said he's never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. "The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation," he said.
Phoenix was Obama's last stop on a four-day tour of western states, including Montana and Colorado.
Authorities in Montana said they received no reports of anyone carrying firearms during Obama's health care town hall near Bozeman on Friday. About 1,000 people both for and against Obama converged at a protest area near the Gallatin Field Airport hangar where the event took place. One person accused of disorderly conduct was detained and released, according to the Gallatin Airport Authority.
Heather Benjamin of Denver's Mesa County sheriff's department, the lead agency during Obama's visit there, said no one was arrested.
Arizona is an "open-carry" state, which means anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it's visible. Only someone carrying a concealed weapon is required to have a permit.
Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.
"To me, this is craziness," he said. "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone."
He said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening," he said.
Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.
"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."
No weapons should be present in an area where the President and other government personnel such as senators etc are speaking. It is just like a fuse of explosives with a match near.
Considering what Bush did while in office... maybe a better question would be:
"Should the president be allowed near weapons?"
To the Anons:
No, I am not saying that everything Rep is evil and everything Dem is good and just. That's what YOU are saying. But the Rep party obviously is trying to prevent a national discussion about health care and is looking insane in the process. And yes I read the WSJ article. Just because they coined the phrase rationer-in-chief doesn't make it true either. But it is a very good piece.
See you on the health care thread!
Anyone that would like to see graphs accurately depicting the budget crisis, Perot put together an excellent set of 35 slides. They are one year out of date, or the numbers would look far ($8-10T) worse.
http://perotcharts.com/home/
What the? on August 29, 2009 12:44 PM
Do you have any arguments or facts that aren't the fear mongering, doomsday scenarios you get from your psychic?
----_____------______------
I'm not the anonymous you are debating, but how is your posting of: What the? on August 28, 2009 1:22 AM any different than what you are accusing this guy of being? You accuse this poster of fear mongering and right wing propoganda, yet you suffer from the same yourself. I would say you've had a little of the liberal kool aid yourself - ever watch MSNBC? If we believe your posting, all things conservative and republican are evil, and all things liberal and democratic are good and just? (When you break it all down it's really what you are saying.)
Anon,
The WSJ article, which you apparently didn't read, used the sub title "Rationer-in-Chief".
It still pops when you click the link I provided to the WSJ.
**************************
"despite your inflammatory fear rhetoric of him as the "rationer-in-chief"."
Anon:
Do you have any arguments or facts that aren't the fear mongering, doomsday scenarios you get from your psychic? That's how your post reads, like a science fiction screenplay. Nothing about what is really happening now, all you folks run on about is the horrible, futuristic blade runner-type society you predict we'll have with a gov. health care option.
I'm not dismissing the WSJ piece on Zeke, I'm simply calm enough to recognize that Zeke is not the embodiment of the future of health care in the U.S., despite your inflammatory fear rhetoric of him as the "rationer-in-chief". Why can so few people on the right discuss the health care debate without going off the deep end into all this craziness? It makes rational discussion impossible, and I think that's what the right is really trying to stop.
What,
Beyond stating that those who don't agree with you are mentally ill, and dismissing the Wall Street Journal op-ed out of hand,
Do you have any arguments or facts to offer beyond 2+2=5?
Anonymous on August 27, 2009 10:47 AM:
You, dear one, have been drinking the conservative fear and rage party punch for far too long. You need to get a grip on reality, and the best way I know how is to pull your head out of the apocalyptic gloom and doom the conservative right has been creating for MONTHS and walk in the sunlight, for god's sake. Really, look at your own post. You sound positively paranoid and practically delusional. You've got this whole fantasy society planned out. Your beliefs are a show on the SyFy channel, not reality anywhere on earth.
Instead of health care doomsday scenarios, you should really be concerned about the collective sanity of the Republican party. You folks need to realize how crazy you all look with Lou Dobbs supporting the birthers, Glen Beck saying our half-white president who was raised by whites has a "deep seated hatred of white people" and now claiming, who is it, CBS?, is planning on taking over the government, Sean Hannity with his faux skewcasts, Michael Steele hapless and getting yanked around so much by his own party that he can't tell his butt from third base, gun owners packing at presidential appearances and people screaming non-stop at meetings that they don't want government run health care while denying that the Medicare they enjoy is run by the government, and radio folks like Limbaugh and Savage (now that's one dark dude) spouting end of life scenarios 3 hours a day. Any Republican with an ounce of rationality and intelligence is staying as far from these nut jobs as possible. And that leaves the nut jobs running the show.
So in the interests of mental health, take a break for awhile and clear your head. Seriously. It will give you some much needed perspective. And as far as Zeke Emanuel is concerned, he is a BIOETHICIST. Philosophizing and writing position papers on medical ethics is what they do. A bioethicist is no more a rationer-in-chief than voluntary end of life counseling is a death panel. Like I said, perspective. Zeke's opinions don't worry me. I don't entirely agree-- the Hippocratic Oath is a factor, but I think defensive medicine plays just as big a part in the overuse of medical care--but I'm smart enough to know that he is but one piece in a very big health care puzzle. You should too.
What?
WSJ article says it better than me.
Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief
White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374463280098676.html
What?
The road the country is traveling is called national bankruptcy (non payment of creditors), without either drastic cuts by the FEDs or inflation possibly hyper-inflation. Audiences erupt into laughter when Geitner says it won't happen and the severely devalued "dollar is sound".
IMHO the cowards (FEDs) can't say no to any group, so inflation is the ticket. Your $20 will only buy you $1 worth of food when the cowards and weasels are done paying the $100T tab. $5T sounds more manageable.
If Health Care is seized by the FEDs, when the shoe drops rationing will occur. The UK was bankrupt and developed their system specifically to ration at the end of WW2. Children were provided with rations by National Health like one glass of OJ per day.
When rationing does occur: the sick, the elderly and the very young will be allowed an appeal to a Board once they are denied medical coverage. The basis for determining coverage will become whether you pay more taxes then you consume, this is how it's done in other countries. "just take the pain pill" Obama.
Your "end of life counselor", psychologists are relatively cheap and in over supply, will talk you through the end of your life after benefits and your one appeal are denied. You can talk to your death counselor as much as you want since it is cheaper than the operation. Eventually, you may realized that it is best for society (the collective) if you die as cheaply as possible.
Perhaps, if you can't bear the pain; like in Holland or Oregon, the state can provide you with euthanasia like a dog. A mercy killing. Think of the cost savings for the Collective a $100 shot instead of the $80K bypass operation.
The proposed program is so defective that the government, specifically the Congress and Executive have effectively exempted themselves.
I hope they don't throw my our Medical System on the Funeral Pyre for Kennedy.
*****************************
Like most words, when the conservatives are done with them they either have no meaning or the meaning is completely changed. I've listened for weeks as many high-profile conservatives took the words "voluntary end of life counseling" and morphed it into "government death panels" in an effort to scare the wits out of the educationally impaired. So unless you have more chain emails to post, let's cut the propaganda.
To Anon:
Your post explains why my handle is "What the?". I said "before assault weapons became the norm SOUTH OF THE BORDER". I don't think the Mexican drug cartels license their assault weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Plus I made no assertion that semi-auto rifles ARE assault weapons or that MX gets these weapons from the U.S. I think you're projecting way too much here.
Like most words, when the conservatives are done with them they either have no meaning or the meaning is completely changed. I've listened for weeks as many high-profile conservatives took the words "voluntary end of life counseling" and morphed it into "government death panels" in an effort to scare the wits out of the educationally impaired. So unless you have more chain emails to post, let's cut the propaganda.
What ?
Actually, assault weapons would mean fully-automatic, which are hard to come by and require a special license from BATF, if not BATF some other similar agency.
Like most words, when the progressives are done with them either words have no meaning at all or the meaning is completely changed. Semi auto rifles are not assault weapons.
Since the Mexican Cartels smuggle entire airplanes and boats full of drugs both into and out of Mexico, do you really believe they aren't bringing in guns from all over the place?
Knock off AK 47 full-auto sell for about $25 in Pakistan, I'm sure they will thrown one in free with each ton of Opium they ship you.
The problem with Mexico for the last 200+ years has been government corruption and failure, the current President is the first one that is standing up to the drug cartels, and winning.
Anyone care to guess why all of his predecessors allowed the cartels to operate with no Federal interference$.
Glock: Now here you are being crazy with the guns again. Chill, Glockster. You only get this nuts when I'm around.
We bought the gun as a deterrent, and I think showing any gun would have worked in that situation. Of course, this was over 20 years ago, before assult weapons became the norm south of the border. But at that time, the biggest thing happening were rafters being picked off by shooters on the MX side as they went down the Rio Grande. Ah, the good old days. I'm sure such memories make the NRA types all misty.
What the ?-HA HA HA. Did you get laughed out of Texas? A .22 for protection. You crack me up. President Ronald Regan was shot 2 or 3 times by a two bit moron with a .22 and 6 months later addressing the NRA convention upholding the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms to a stand up, cheering crowd. It was awesome! Yes, he was quite a man. According to the new book "In the Presidents Secret Service", Reagan comes out of his house at the western White House in Santa Barabara once wearing a wild west .45 Colt in a hip rig. A Secret Service agent the story goes asks him Mr. President, why are you carrying a gun? It was written that Reagan replied we are going horse back riding today and I just want to be able to help you fellas out if you need it. Now that was my kind of President and to this day I tear up when I see him on Fox in a news clip during his presidency. Oh for those good old days.
Hey, Glock! I'm baaaaaaack! Miss me?
I was very encouraged to see your post stating, "As an owner of dozens of guns, a big proponent of private ownership of firearms by law abiding people, I do not think carrying guns openly around any President or head of state is a good idea. And I would not do it even if I could do it legally." So you really are one of the sane ones, tho you try not to let on at times!
I have nothing against gun ownership; in fact, we have one. I can't tell you what it is for sure, a .22 maybe? We got it when we lived in TX and liked to hike and camp in a beautiful state park near the Mexican border where we suspected a lot of smuggling of drugs and illegals. But we got it for personal protection, not show. And that's definitely what these guns are being used for in this situation. I don't think anyone would say that a town hall meeting on health care is a situation where one would need to protect oneself with deadly force.
These guns are displayed by their owners at political events in an attempt to create a hostile environment and intimidate opponents. Other states will take notice and perhaps think twice before passing similar right to carry laws. In the meantime, notice the body language of the men--I don't think any so far have been women--who are displaying their weapons in public. Notice how they stand and strut around with these things. You can tell they feel empowered by their weapons, and this makes a statement about the personalities of these kind of people. Anyone who needs to show a deadly weapon in order to feel adequate and powerful is a potential problem in any situation. The testosterone levels among those dozen or so men must've been off the charts; they seemed to really enjoy playing Rambo for the cameras.
I guess the only difference between men and boys IS the size of their toys. Geez!
To Anonymous on August 20, 2009 6:12 AM
Re: Your Dr. Charles Krauthammer "speech"
Oh, please! Do you guys have to clutter this blog with your chain emails? It's not enough that they live on the blogosphere, but now I have to see them here? These bogus testimonials are easy to spot because they all follow the same redundant formula:
First, the warnings that if we don't heed these comments we are all doomed, stressing some words in ALL CAPS, such as "pass this along to EVERYBODY that loves his country. This is VERY serious for the direction of our country. The ramifications are staggering for us and our children". Same old same old.
Next, legitimizing the speaker as really knowing what he's talking about because he's brighter, smarter, more accomplished, more successful than the average person. "He is on Fox News. He is an M.D., brilliant intellectual, seasoned and articulate. He has a Pulitzer Prize for writing." etc. and so forth. Fox News will give air time to anyone, no matter how loony, who is willing to trash Obama and his administration. This really isn't much of an endorsement.
Then the fear-mongering, extremist views are repeated, while insisting the speaker is not a fear-mongering extremist, "(he)never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views." Such as in "Obama has a ruthless quest for power." "Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world." "He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist. He wants to" dismantle capitalism. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada."
Yada, yada, yada.
Then the diatribe is topped off with the usual disclaimer by the sender/poster, such as I don't usually send these things, but I'm making an exception this time. Times are desperate! blah blah blah.
Would you guys get a new format?! This one is so cookie cutter that it's entirely predictable and doesn't work on anyone but the most gullible and weak-minded. And you've already got all those folks.
I think that the fact that the one person here who actually works in the media automatically assumed that gun owners legally carrying their guns were an angry mob is part of the problem. For some reason, a lot of the media is anti-gun, and will perpetuate the angry gun owner myth. However, the statistics show that the media generalizations are wrong, but you have to dig pretty deep, to find those statistics that the media won't acknowledge.
A1
Thanks for the link for the snopes link which has K's articles:
If someone in fact did a write up after the event from their notes, the letter is what it might sound like since the writer touts themselves as a conservative.
Sounds the same to me?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/02/AR2009040203287.html
Obama's Ultimate Agenda
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 3, 2009
.......Obama has far different ambitions. His goal is to rewrite the American social compact, to recast the relationship between government and citizen. He wants government to narrow the nation's income and anxiety gaps.
*Soak the rich for reasons of revenue and justice.
*Nationalize health care and
*federalize education to grant all citizens of all classes the freedom from anxiety about health care and college that the rich enjoy.
*And fund this vast new social safety net through the cash cow of a disguised carbon tax.
*Obama is a leveler.
He has come to narrow the divide between rich and poor. For him the ultimate social value is fairness. Imposing it upon the American social order is his mission.
***Fairness through leveling is the essence of Obamaism.
(Asked by Charlie Gibson during a campaign debate about his support for raising capital gains taxes -- even if they caused a net revenue loss to the government -- Obama stuck to the tax hike "for purposes of fairness.") The elements are
*highly progressive taxation,
*federalized health care and higher education,
*and revenue-producing energy controls.
But first he must deal with the sideshows. They could sink the economy and poison his public support before he gets to enact his real agenda.
Daley doesn't have nearly as much control as his father and with the constant crackdown by the Feds on corruption it won't be long before he joins a long line of former IL politicians in the big house.
Even if the Feds can't nail him his days are numbered. He doesn't have what it takes to control the black and latino votes. From the looks of things Chicago and Cook county politics are going to be decided and run by the black voters for the foreseeable future.
Anonymous on August 20, 2009 6:12 AM
My source confirms that the below is a first hand account not an anonymous chain e-mail. Normally I won't post anything this large, but I'm making an exception.
___________
I'd be interested in knowing who your "source" is because this complete cut and paste is discussed on Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/krauthammer.asp
To paraphrase a few phrases about your "first hand account", Krauthammer says the following:
"This account is neither accurate nor authoritative".
"This e-mail is somebody putting his own ideological stamp and spin on my views."
GJC 8:40 AM: I was going to write back to disagree with you until I re-read your comments. After reading them 3 times I realized there isn't anything I disagree with!
Ken wrote:
Significant numbers of Democrats supported many of Bush's measures during his first term.
I see nothing wrong in carrying a firearm around the President or any other politician for that matter. As a matter of fact, it would be nice if Illinois would become a right to carry state. But Daily won't let that happen because he wants control.
You also have to remember that the Media has slanted things when it comes to firearms. More people are killed with knives annually than guns, yet no one is trying to take our knives. Go figure.
Killers and theives will always have guns. Taking guns away from honest hard working people is not the answer, but the bleeding heart liberals seem to think so.
Glock says: Obama is in the process of growing government, its influence in our personal lives, astronomical, unrestrained deficit spending all while dividing the populace.
I suggest rereading that sentence, and replacing the name Obama with the name Bush. Still works, doesn't it?
Two different parties, with two differing agendas, both having the same generally divisive effect. Oh - wait - That's the way the two party system is supposed to work. Your party gets a chance to create policies that my party disagrees with. Over time, my party takes over and gets a chance to create policies that your party disagrees with. Rinse and repeat more or less endlessly.
It may not be perfect, but at the heart of it is the way that our country works. Nothing that one party does can really, truly rewrite the face of the country, because the other party will come into power and make changes. The Reagan revolution is no longer in the ascendancy - though some parts still remain. The Clinton legacy is a bit stronger, though it's been watered down and changed over time. Bush policy is in the process of being watered down, and give it a few more years, much if it will have been changed. The same will happen to Obama's policies over time, when he's out of office.
That's the way this whole thing works...
Rambo, Glock & Ken,
The Dems did everything possible to make Bush fail or trip him. In the case of Obama, I think everyone has to take a step back and ask what Obama's agenda is and do I support it.
My source confirms that the below is a first hand account not an anonymous chain e-mail. Normally I won't post anything this large, but I'm making an exception.
****************************
Subject: Dr. Krauthammer
Dr. Krauthammer is on Fox News. He is an M.D. and he is paralyzed from the neck down. Be forewarned on what is happening. A friend went to hear Charles Krauthammer. He listened with 25 others in closed room. What he says here, is NOT 2nd-hand, but 1st. You would do well to read and pass this along to EVERYBODY that loves his country. This is VERY serious for the direction of our country. The ramifications are staggering for us and our children
Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is brilliant intellectual, seasoned and articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fear monger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer Prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally.
Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not drunk the Kool-Aid, feel free. Summary of his comments:
1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a cool customer who doesn't show his emotions. It's very hard to know what's behind the mask. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.
2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he's on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!
3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling capitalism. He can't be straightforward on his ambitions, as the public would not go along. He has a heavy hand, and wants to level the playing field with income redistribution and punishment to the achievers of society. He would like to model the USA to Great Britain or Canada.
4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, AND NATIONAL HEALTH CARE by the Federal government. He doesn't care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid.
5. He has surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they are going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can't work in the long run. Obama is not a socialist; rather he's a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.
6. Obama doesn't really see himself as President of the United States , but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate and coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!
7. He is now handing out goodies. He hopes that the bill (and pain) will not come due until after he is re-elected in 2012. He would like to blame all problems on Bush from the past, and hopefully his successor in the future. He has a huge ego, and Mr. Krauthammer believes he is a narcissist.
8. Republicans are in the wilderness for a while, but will emerge strong. We're pining for another Reagan, but there will never be another like him. Krauthammer believes Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Bobby Jindahl (except for his terrible speech in February) are the future of the party. Newt Gingrich is brilliant, but has baggage. Sarah Palin is sincere and intelligent, but needs to really be seriously boning up on facts and info if she is to be a serious candidate in the future. We need to return to the party of lower taxes, smaller government, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and state's rights.
9. The current level of spending is irresponsible and outrageous. We are spending trillions that we don't have. This could lead to hyper-inflation, depression or worse. No country has ever spent themselves into prosperity. The media is giving Obama, Reid and Pelosi a pass because they love their agenda. But eventually the bill will come due and people will realize the huge bail outs didn't work, nor will the stimulus package. These were trillion-dollar payoffs to Obama's allies, unions and the Congress to placate the left, so he can get support for #4 above.
10. The election was over in mid-September when Lehman brothers failed, fear and panic swept in, we had an unpopular President, and the war was grinding on indefinitely without a clear outcome. The people are in pain, and the mantra of change caused people to act emotionally. Any Dem would have won this election; it was surprising it was as close as it was.
11. In 2012, if the unemployment rate is over 10%, Republicans will be swept back into power. If it's under 8%, the Dems continue to roll. If it's between 8-10%, it will be a dogfight. It will all be about the economy. I hope this gets you really thinking about what's happening in Washington and Congress. There is a left-wing revolution going on, according to Krauthammer, and he encourages us to keep the faith and join the loyal resistance. The work will be hard, but we're right on most issues and can reclaim our country, before it's far too late.
Let's face it the bottom line on this discussion is nothing more than a debate over distance... somewhere there is a secure perimeter around the president... everywhere else there is the right to bear arms. The discussion is really only about how big or how small the overlap between these two areas should be and the uneasiness that results when one side gets too close to the other. In all honesty, the guns that are visible are probably the ones that cause those responsible for security the least amount of worry anyway. If you really, really think hard about the very reasons behind why the fathers of our country gave us the right to form militias and to keep and bear arms; it is these very reasons that will cause those responsible for political security the greatest amount of concern should the political situation in this country ever come to that.
I just can't wrap my head around why someone would want to see the President "fail".
Funny how all those saying this now had no problem with the Democrats actively trying to make President Bush fail for eight years.
Rambo: Obama is in the process of growing government, its influence in our personal lives, astronomical, unrestrained deficit spending all while dividing the populace. Assuming I believe this, and assuming this is detrimental to our personal freedoms (such as free speech, thought, private ownership of firearms, healthcare choice just to name a few pesky challenges to his change of America) and the overall long term health of our nation, the question is why SHOULD we support this vitiating president? Why is it correct to support a president with a flawed agenda? How is a flawed agenda something to hope for?
In reference to my previous post on what happens when the FED debt bubble pops, Buffet's NYT OP-ED politely asking the government not to hyper-inflate the US into a banana republic.
Just in case the Geniuses running DC get it wrong, I still think IL and Wisc need to stop abridging our God given right to self-defense and allow both open and concealed carry in both states.
****************************
The Greenback Effect
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Published: August 18, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/opinion/19buffett.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
.......Because of this gigantic deficit, our country’s “net debt” (that is, the amount held publicly) is mushrooming. During this fiscal year, it will increase more than one percentage point per month, climbing to about 56 percent of G.D.P. from 41 percent.......
.......Legislators will correctly perceive that either raising taxes or cutting expenditures will threaten their re-election. To avoid this fate, they can opt for high rates of inflation, which never require a recorded vote and cannot be attributed to a specific action that any elected official takes. In fact, John Maynard Keynes long ago laid out a road map for political survival amid an economic disaster of just this sort: “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.... The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”..........
To Anonymous on August 18, 2009 2:45 PM
RE crime after a hurricane
I was living down there at the time and my in laws also got the North Eye Wall (Perrine area). No one was keeping crime data because it was day to day survival for a while. Ask Honda South if any of their employees were overrun in their vehicle by mobs, subsequently beaten and the truck contents stolen while trying to bring down things like generators from their Ft. Lauderdale store as an example...
Firearms just made the crimes shift to areas where no one was standing guard over something; it in no way shape or form made it drop because people still wanted whatever they could get their hands on.
I just can't wrap my head around why someone would want to see the President "fail". Disagree with him all you want, but to have the President "fail" in turn would mean a massive failure as a whole for our country including angry Republicans.
How is this something to hope for?
As an owner of dozens of guns, a big proponent of private ownership of firearms by law abiding people, I do not think carrying guns openly around any President or head of state is a good idea. And I would not do it even if I could do it legally. However this particular president has many of our civil liberties in his sights as he remakes our nation for us and I can understand some of these people in AZ carrying guns legally believe, correctly that confiscation and banning private ownership of firearms will be the next attack on our freedoms by this clown, Obama. This is the president during a WBEZ interview several years ago, I heard with my own lying ears said he considered the Constitution as an impedement to what needed to be done in this country. And that seemed okay with the WBEZ interviewer because there was no challenge to the thought and utterance. I will write it again so What the ? is reminded when she gets back. I did not vote for him, this Obama and I do not consider him my president or representative of me. His success is not good for a successful, free nation so as you might imagine, I hope to see him fail and replaced in 2012. Given his popularity is barely at 50%, people are catching on this Obama joker is NOT the change we need after all. And to professor Solop, the disturbing trend in this country is if you talk back to any of these politicians, lefty brands you as the next "Joe the Plumber". That is the real disturbing trend that of course he is too corrupted himself to recognize. Katy Abrams, housewife, mother and private citizen confronts one of the most useless politicians in the Senate, Arlen Spector in PA last week about what she considers important and she is now personally ridiculed and attacked by little Chimps such as Paul Begala, Katie Couric, Keith Oberman, Jon Stewart to name a few I heard from as the newest "Sarah Palin". Solop should be more concerned about freedom of speech and thought in this country rather than citizens in AZ legally carrying firearms in front of someone like Obama.
denny wrote:
Sure! Any loyal, legal American citizen should have the same rights as Obama's hired goons.
"Obama's hired goons"? Are you talking about the Secret Service?
Jeff wrote:
No, Jeff, I fully understood that. My point was that, personally, given the choice between hanging out with a bunch of law-abiding people carrying guns, and a bunch of law-abiding people who are not carrying guns, I feel safer around those who aren't carrying guns. My chances of getting shot while hanging with the gun-toters may be next to zero, but my chances of getting shot by one of the unarmed are exactly zero.
-JQP
OJ,
I'm open to being wrong, where can I find the Andrew crime data? My family and friends on the ground didn't have any problems and I don't recall reports of wide spread law breaking.
Me
PS Am gratified you enjoy my posts, I try to be amusing while flogging the reality of the situation. I wonder how Casandra of Troy felt when proven right? Or had they already put her to death before the city fell? Must be age, forgot how the Trojan war ended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra
"Her beauty caused Apollo to grant her the gift of prophecy. However, when she did not return his love, Apollo placed a curse on her so that no one would ever believe her predictions."..........
.........While Cassandra foresaw the destruction of Troy (she warned the Trojans about the Trojan Horse, the death of Agamemnon, and her own demise), she was unable to do anything to forestall these tragedies since they did not believe her.
***********************
By Original Joe on August 18, 2009 12:21 PM
Anonymous@Aug 18, 9:34AM
Always fun to read posts like yours, but at least one part was complete hogwash:
RE: By Anonymous on August 18, 2009 9:34 AM
"After Andrew wiped out S. Florida there was effectively zero looting; since armed citizens were openly carrying in their neighborhoods and "looters shot on site" signs went up. Crime may have actually dropped."
-----
I am someone who went through Hurricane Andrew in Homestead, FL. I can tell you as a matter of fact that there was easily as much looting as there was post Katrina. In fact, minus the flooding, the aftermath was eerily similar. Many areas were cut off from safe drinking water, food, electricity, or a way out. There were NO armed citizens roaming the streets to protect us. Many of the same complaints about government ineptitude were present then as well....
Chris Magee said: To me, that statement they're making seems to be something along the lines of "a lot of us here have guns, and if you pass laws we don't like, we might decide to use them." That's not how our system is supposed to work.
That is plain idiotic. Has anyone mentioned how many people were harmed at this rally yet? Or the one in New Hampshire last week?
Has anyone mentioned how many innocent people were mugged this week in Chicago alone? Definitely more because of the fact that the muggers know their victim is helpless. Put a concealed weapon in the hands of law abiding citizens so the muggers might think twice. Then the crime rate will drop just as it has in 48 other states.
Why do we continue to let these politicians help all these thugs? Do Politicians = Thugs?
Sure! Any loyal, legal American citizen should have the same rights as Obama's hired goons. After all, aren't most of them citizens too?
T.B., I said "angry" because they were protesting health care, and I have seen plenty of footage on TV of people at these meetings getting in each other's faces and practically foaming at the mouth because they were so angry. Were these particular people angry? I wasn't there so I can't say, but that has been the trend of these health care forums around the country, which is why many Illinois congressmen are avoiding them.
But on the original topic, I guess what bothers me the most is that in our country, political debate is supposed to be driven by ideas, not intimidation. Political rallies where everyone has guns are the hallmark of those parts of the world most of us shake our heads at, like the West Bank or Gaza Strip. You can't tell me that a bunch of people with guns aren't intimidating. And they obviously brought them to make a statement - it's not that it was a nice day and they thought they'd take their gun for a walk. To me, that statement they're making seems to be something along the lines of "a lot of us here have guns, and if you pass laws we don't like, we might decide to use them." That's not how our system is supposed to work. People should be able to have political meetings and debates without fear.
John Q. Public, What you failed to understand from John's post regarding citizens who open carry being the least afraid of, is that people who own guns legally and follow all of the laws legally are not out to have the "shootout" some seem to believe. Extreme majority of civilians who legally carry are doing so in protection from the animals who illegally posess guns. 49 of 50 states have laws for legally carrying a firearm in public. Most recently Florida, has shown a major drop in crime immediately following the new law. Illinois politicians are only helping the criminals in this state by giving them the knowledge that no one is being protected. What does a 115 pound woman do against a 200 pound male? Wait for the police to show up?
The most disturbing thing to me about people who feel the need to openly carry a gun is that most people take it one step farther than that and include extra ammo. I don't agree with it but I can at least understand the fear that your average gun toting American has that would make them want to carry a gun to a grocery store. Sure, you could save the day by pulling your gun on some would-be criminals in the process of robbing some old lady... But how would that require any more than just pulling your gun on them?
Do these nuts really expect to find themselves in some kind of guns-a-blazin' firefight where they not only need to shoot the 1 bullet in the chamber but also the 14 in their clip, but go through an additional 2 clips for 43 shots fired total? It's hard for me to think of a situation where pulling out your gun would do anything other than make a bad situation a hundred times worse.
At the end of the day it seems like the main motivation for people who feel the need to openly carry is a deathly fear of anyone who isn't white christian conservative... So, I suppose it would make sense that they'd also want to carry their guns around the president.
“Those of you who carry guns may be comfortable around a group of armed, angry strangers, but many of the rest of us wouldn't go anywhere near that group.” – Chris
Attitudes about firearms are very different in the West and Southwest than attitudes you’ll find here, or California, or the East Coast. Though you may not wish to go anywhere near those people, Chris, they’re viewed very differently in the West.
If you can prohibit First Amendment rights near polling places (electioneering), then I assume you could also prohibit people from carrying firearms near the polls.
Also, from the pictures I saw the person carrying the weapon appeared to be very calm. I’m not sure why you interjected the word “angry” into the quote above.
T.B.
Anonymous@Aug 18, 9:34AM
Always fun to read posts like yours, but at least one part was complete hogwash:
"After Andrew wiped out S. Florida there was effectively zero looting; since armed citizens were openly carrying in their neighborhoods and "looters shot on site" signs went up. Crime may have actually dropped."
You obviously were not there. There was plenty of looting and plenty of other bad things that went on.
John wrote:
The liberals on the coasts are outraged at these "acts of aggression." However, in these states, people who open carry are most likely the people you have to be afraid of the least.
Actually, the people who don't carry guns at all are the one we have to be afraid of the least.
Safety and responsible use are central core principles of firearm ownership. Every NRA member knows that.
Making a showy display that you have a firearm at someone else's political gathering of variable and unknown intensity, is not responsible firearm ownership.
Past that, you’re just a witless tool with an assault rifle slung over your back looking stoopid.
Even if the president is not in danger, which I am not conceding, it still creates a hostile environment. I'm not going to argue about the right to bear arms, but when I see a bunch of people openly standing around in public carrying guns, that's going to scare me and make me not want to go anywhere near there. Those of you who carry guns may be comfortable around a group of armed, angry strangers, but many of the rest of us wouldn't go anywhere near that group. What if during the next election they are standing outside polling places, just far enough away to be legal? Would that keep some people from voting? No, that hasn't happened yet, but where does this trend go from here?
@Chris Magee
I doubt that a guy who spends $700 for an EOTech holo-sight would waste time "spraying bullets". I'm pretty sure he would carefully aim his shots.
All kidding aside, one has to remember that no one is breaking the law. It's completely legal in these states to Open Carry. I think that's the point.
The liberals on the coasts are outraged at these "acts of aggression." However, in these states, people who open carry are most likely the people you have to be afraid of the least.
I wonder how many people have attended events like this in the past while conceal carrying. I imagine lots of presidents have been this close to people carrying firearms and they just didn't know it.
The United States Constitution, the bill of rights and the limits it set forth against the government are not a matter of public opinion.
That is the problem with a democracy, 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49.
This is not a democracy, it's a republic, a land of constitutional law.
Chris, why don't you post up a story with a headline like
"Dozens Carry Firearms, No Injuries Take Place"
These idiots that follow the laws and follow what our forefathers created should be locked up. I mean what were they thinking? /sarcasm.
When the Chinese have gotten the last piece of our technology and manufacturing base that they want, they will stop lending money to the intellectually, morally and financially bankrupt US Government.
We have spent over $1 Trillion in two wars which are not likely to yield the US very much in any benefits of any kind. China will have defeated us for less than $1 trillion loaned to the FEDs while they have emptied our economy with DCs active assistance. Like musical chairs, parts of our economy keep disappearing while China loans the FEDs money to keep the dance going.
The latest set of concessions was giving China substantial authority on the World Bank and IMF, both of these organizations will be instrumental as collection agents squeezing China's money back out of the FEDs (that is us the taxpayers) when the Federal debt bubble pops. The countries in South America and other parts of the world are moving their economies away from the US as fast as humanly possible and re-orienting towards China so they don't get sucked down when the FED debt bubble pops.
When the Federal, State and Local debt bubbles pop, the music stops and there will be tens of millions with no economic chair to sit in.
Illinois and Wisconsin should wake up and get both concealed and open carry gun laws on the books before the bubble pops. The bubble pop is likely to look like GM's bankruptcy times about 10,000 with a few weeks warning and no one rushing in to lend the FEDS a Trillion interest free to keep the music playing for another month or two.
Alternatively, the FEDs will probably just print up a few trillion more and the dollar will collapse ala Argentina overnight effectively taxing savings at a 90% rate, pay checks stay the same and the price of bread goes to $10 and gas to $20 a gallon.
The welfare mob that Bush, Obama and the Democrats are working diligently to create will not stay home and starve when the benefits run out.
Like Rome, stand by for bread riots. Perhaps the government can bring back the Roman circus, gladiators and mass public executions of criminals and political opponents at the stadiums and keep them going every day to in order to keep the welfare mob occupied.
A side benefit is both watering and fertilizer use can be reduced at the stadiums and a lot of carbon emitting humans can be terminated, I think this can be sold as a "GREEN" program.
As an additional ecologically friendly government program; the protein can be recycled as green crackers and given to the welfare mob as free food during breaks in the action. The crackers could be seasoned with birth control drugs further reducing the number of carbon emitting units created and allowing for drunken orgies at the stadiums after the entertainment is over for the day. Well fed entertained drunks are usually passive and easy to manage.
While Naperville has an excellent police force, it is unlikely that 12-15 uniformed officers on duty at any one time could contain any serious wide scale disturbance without a lot of passive help from armed citizens.
After Andrew wiped out S. Florida there was effectively zero looting; since armed citizens were openly carrying in their neighborhoods and "looters shot on site" signs went up. Crime may have actually dropped.
Citizens able to do something without: direct government assistance, lots of contractors that were formerly elected officials who just re-contract the work after taking a percentage, or subsidies and a giant bureaucracy to make sure they follow the wisdom from the top. Can't possibly work.
I strongly support 2nd amendement rights for hunters, etc, but these wackos are bringing their weapons out in attempts to intimidate. It is sickening - all they need is some brown shirts. 2nd amendement rights are not about using weapons to silence those who oppose you politically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can't_Happen_Here
Why should any citizen have to surrender their right to bear arms in defense just because a politician is next door? If the People fear for the Presidents safety then for his term in office he should stick exclusively to the secured areas provided for him. As stated by another commenter, the Secret Service has no problem with armed citizens outside the screened secured areas, so why should anybody else.
If you're going into a closed room or town hall where the President is speaking the answer is no. If you're open carrying and a situation arises you really don't want to be armed because you're not there to defend the POTUS, that is the job of the Secret Service. However, if you're outside and it's legal to conceal or open carry then as long as you're not doing anything stupid and just expressing your First and Second Amendment rights then go for it. Your rights don't stop because someone is in town but there are circumstances and places where you can't be armed and around the POTUS should be one, just like a bar. I carry concealed all the time but if I'm going somewhere that doesn't allow it I put my firearm in a secure place.
Did you even read the article you posted, Chris? The secret service had no problem with the protesters, and pointed out that they were not allowed in where the president was speaking.
The same people who are upset about this are the same people who claimed we would have gunfights in the street as each of the 48 states that have concealed carry laws passed those laws. That hasn't happened, and it kind of points out that crying wolf all the time doesn't work anymore, especially with the number of gun owners that vote.
Anonymous, I don't know how many were openly carrying their gun, though probably none, with the reason being of course that if you see someone carrying a gun around the president, you're going to assume the worst. I suppose you are trying to say that if the gun is openly displayed it is less likely to be used, but think about this from an assassin's perspective. If it becomes accepted to stand around a presidential speech armed, how much easier is that making his task? The guy mentioned in this story was standing around with an assault rifle over his shoulder. How easy is it for him to bring that to bear and start spraying bullets?
Sure, they have the right to own guns.
However, it's a real shame everyone seems to forget what these meetings are about: providing information and debate for regular people about HEALTH CARE.
Toting these guns around distract from the real issue and do real harm to getting out information to people. They've turned one important issue into a circus. It's completely destructive to progress for our health care system no matter which side you stand on.
These kooks are trying to make a statement about gun rights, but they're probably creating more enemies than they are friends.
Chris,
How many of the assassins were openly carrying their gun?
Here's how I see it. We've had 43 presidents in our history (yes, Obama is the 44th president, but Grover Cleveland is counted twice). Out of those, four have been assassinated (Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy). Reagan was shot but survived. Teddy Roosevelt was shot but survived. There was an attempt to kill Ford. There was an attempt to kill FDR (Chicago's Mayor Anton Cermak was killed instead). RFK was killed while running for office. George Wallace was shot while running. There may be more, but those are the ones I can think of. So of 43 presidents, at least eight either were shot at or killed. With that in mind, and keeping in mind how much controversy Obama generates by being who he is, it is grossly irresponsible to allow weapons to be carried in his presence. There's just too much potential for it to go wrong.
This is going to be one of those balancing tests. 2d amendment v. safety concerns. Just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, you can't carry a gun that close to a president. And, you can't carry a gun on a plane. And, you can't carry a gun into a courthouse. And, you can't carry a gun into a school. Etc.