Maybe Arizona should – and I’m just throwing this out there – consider regulating assault rifles? If a man shows up at a Presidential rally – hell, any rally for that matter – with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder, perhaps, just perhaps, it’s not a simple carrying of arms but a statement about what that individual would like to do with that weapon? Just a thought, really.
It’s not as though a gun, especially the assault rifle, is this season’s newest fashion accessory. I don’t think you’re going to get Vogue magazine devoting a shoot to the latest in gun fashions. ‘This season, don’t forget your assault rifle. Swing it over your shoulder at a jaunty angle. Decorate it with polka dots or tweed. Make it as individual as you are!’ Uh uh, isn’t going to happen.
I mean, come on! I don’t care if there are technically no laws against carrying the weapon in public, there is a sense of what is acceptable, isn’t there? I certainly think so. I don’t want to be ‘conditioned’ to the carrying of weapons in public as the Arizona gentleman suggests. The statements this man and the man in New Hampshire are making are very clear and, in my opinion, frightening.
You shouldnt pass a law against those that know the guidlines and responsibility for owning and using such a weapon. Criminals have them and get them by unlawful means with the intent to harm how about you remove them from the picture before you open your mouth against them before you speak openly about a law that has been in order longer than you been around. It appears you havent researched or known this law was allowed in your state so really doesnt seem to be a issue.
Where is the sense of what is acceptable, well here is a few for you how about stoping the drugs sold in our country (schools), criminals from committing crimes, or here is a good one DUI first. They cause more damage and deaths than carrying a weapon in the open in public.
I was going to suggest that if you are that afraid of people exercising some of their rights, maybe you should move “across the pond”. Then I looked at your “about” page and saw that you already moved there. Glad to see it. Hope you feel safe.
Why does anyone need to carry a weapon on a city street? there is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588
Respectfully, I disagree with the reasoning in your article, but not the main focus. It is very stupid of someone such as this man to do what he did. He did it to be seen, he did it to make a scene, and he didn’t out of stupid pride. This wasn’t a gun control rally, it was about healthcare, so leave the gun rights pitch at home.
However, he did not carry this weapon with violent intent. If he had any intent of using that weapon, you never would have seen it. The problem is that people do get scared when they see a firearm. The scarier thing to me is the firearm I don’t see. Most of your violent crimes aren’t going to come from a man openly carrying a gun that he bought with a full background check from a gun show. The violent crimes will arise from those who steal a gun from one of these people, or who buys an illegal gun out of the back of someones trunk. Chances are that, if push came to shove, the man with this assault rifle would put his life on the line to protect those around him. He carries a weapon, in this case, for a statement. But day-to-day, those of us that do carry firearms in public, don’t do it to make a statement, but instead to be able to defend ourselves and others when the time is right.
So yes, this man should not have brought this rifle to the rally, but I believe your fear of open-carry firearms is not well-grounded.
My blog; my opinions. I don’t own a gun and don’t want to own a gun but I don’t care if you own a gun. However, I don’t think anyone should be allowed to carry a gun in public, concealed or not. I just don’t see the point of carrying it while at a public meeting unless you are trying to make a statement, which this man and the one in New Hampshire were clearly trying to do. Were these men expecting an invasion? Did they honestly think the chance of being attacked was so high that it required the carrying of weaponry to defend themselves?
I will not be drawn into a battle of whether people have a right to own guns or not because it is a debate that will never see an end. It is too divisive. I’m just a sweet little southern gal who never quite understood the fascination with guns. Maybe that’s why I moved ‘across the pond’; I didn’t quite fit in anymore and, again, I am not ashamed. I have my opinions and, clearly, they don’t mesh with those of these individuals who didn’t even have the courage to comment with their real names.
I can certianly understand why carrying this rifle would upset many people. I am not a “right wing nut”, far from it; but, we have to be very careful of the attitude that says because we don’t understand something, it should be outlawed.
The fact is that American demoracy only works when people are allowed to do what they like, so long as it dosen’t hurt others. There are laws against that man doing anything with that rifle that would hurt anyone else. If he pointed it at anyone or threatened to harm anyone with it, that is a crime. If he discharged it, that is a crime. If he did anything intentionaly dangerous to public safety at all, it would be a crime.
We would all be harmed in ways we can’t even imagine if we got used to the idea that because we didn’t like something, understand something, or if someone somewhere might abuse a freedom, someone else should make a law against it.
“But day-to-day, those of us that do carry firearms in public, don’t do it to make a statement, but instead to be able to defend ourselves and others when the time is right.”
Yeah, those pesky hordes of invaders are always coming down the street towards you and I just don’t know whether to pull the knife or the gun? Or do I use the Uzi? The possibilities are endless!
You use the term “frightening” at the end of your blog. I think that is because you might not know much about firearms. There is nothing wrong with that at all, it isn’t for everyone. I wouldn’t want to force it upon anyone. Just like the removal of our rights shouldn’t be forced against me. Far too many people have given their lives to ensure we have those rights and freedoms. The term “assault rifle” is one of those buzz words that are used to drum up fear, pretty sick if you ask me. They are not really assault rifles in all honesty. Another thing to consider is your average criminal type doesn’t use a $1000 rifle to do a $50 robbery. It just doesn’t happen. I took a look around your blog site. This subject is similar to the veggie fascists you were talking about. Eating meat should not be taken away nor forced on anyone. It should simply be a choice that everyone is allowed to make on their own. I must admit I am with you-Go meat! I also don’t think animals should be abused in the process. Not saying they should all be treated like kobe beef either. Those cows have the life, get to get drunk and massaged their entire life until that final day. I have drifted a bit off topic, but I am sure you get my point. Your thoughts?
Clearly, I’ve opened a can of worms so…I’m out! Argue amongst yourselves. I’ve said my peace.
It sure makes the secret security’s job much harder now because of stupid right-wing, no common sense, Republicans who are flaunting their personal rights that are out of context.
When the President gets assassinated, don’t start crying, because the next time this stunt gets pulled, the guns in the crowd are going to be planned and aimed at him… thanks to a bunch of morons who think they are expressing themselves in order to attract attention like children.
That’s the thing. I did post with my real name. I respect that it is your blog, and you can do with it exactly what you will. I too am a southern boy, and I have been exposed to firearms as I grew up a military dependant and served on active duty myself as an adult. You are, of course, free to respond, or not to respond as you see fit here on your blog. But, in a sense, you have tossed a verbal hand grenade into this debate. To walk away makes this a monolouge. Monolouges seldom help anyone as they serve primarily to define sides of an issue. The media has us conditioned to listen to a soundbite, pick a side, and gird ourselves for battle without much real thought about the issue. I would challange you to dig a little deeper and advocate you views in the marketplace of ideas. I would encourage everyone else to do the same, respectfuly, sensibly and rationaly.
I know what I believe; I’ve said what I believe. I don’t own a gun and I don’t think anyone else should own a gun. That’s my opinion. I’m not going to change my mind; you’re not going to change yours. And the name bit was in reference to the first two commenters, not you.
This man was only carrying his gun for protection in case someone tried to attack him with healthcare.
“I know what I believe; I’ve said what I believe. I don’t own a gun and I don’t think anyone else should own a gun. That’s my opinion.” I agree that you are welcome to it. So long as I am allowed to believe that I should be able to own a gun, then we can agree to disagree. It’s when those who don’t want to make sure that no one else does, that we have a problem.
“This man was only carrying his gun for protection in case someone tried to attack him with healthcare.”
I appreciate the laugh. I disagree, but the post was awesome.
And Leah, thank you for the reply. You do know you make the blog section of the story on CNN.com, right? You should expect a lot of attention on this post. Though I fear they won’t all be rational or respectful, I do hope they are. Thank you for your input, and giving us a forum for this talk.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this individual had an occasional red dot beamed to the back, and maybe front, of his head. But that would just be the secret service doing their due dilligence to protect the president and the democratic process.
Thanks Anthony. I just discovered how you were all finding me before I saw your comment. Hopefully someone else will be ‘featured’ on CNN soon and I’ll be forgotten about.
No, I am happy to be part of the debate but there are some people you just cannot argue with. You and I can agree to disagree.
Odd, these nut jobs with their rifles at a presidential appearance are the first to want government out of their lives. However, they may not realize that the secret service counter sniper units have them in their scopes just in case. Now that is bringing government into your life.
First, don’t use the word “assault rifle”. That rifle in the picture is not an assault rifle, it is a regular semi auto rifle. Look up assault rifle, they are fully auto. Just because its built on the same platform as a military weapon doesn’t mean it is. Walking around with guns in public may seem weird to you, but its not. How do you think people bring guns into gun shows? Its your right(and IMO obligation) to protect yourself and your family. Just because you don’t like guns doesn’t mean they should be banned. If more people started carrying guns the crime rate would drop big time.
Thank you for clarifying what type of gun he carried, because that’s what I was worried about! And saying “If more people started carrying guns the crime rate would drop big time” is just massive hyperbole and conjecture and, pretty much, wholly without merit or truth.
Hey, all he was doing was auditioning for Fox News. Give him a break!
What is funny is the rednecks out there are to stupid to realize that the Democrats are staging this to rally support for gun control. Our local organizer has been trying to find people to support this cause for weeks unfortunately he can’t find any gun owners in Seattle willing to participate.
Thank you Chuck, that was very funny.
I’m off to a meeting in a few minutes for an hour or so. Keep commenting and I’ll moderate as soon as I can.
Leah
So the guy shows up with his rifle and doesn’t break any laws and is totally peaceful, and you want to outlaw that? Maybe the gun owner isn’t the problem. Its people like you who want to outlaw everything they don’t like.
Leah:
People fear what they do not understand, and politicians often use fear to bend people to their will. The primary reason why our founding fathers put the provision that it is the right of all Americans to bear arms in our constitution is to protect the people from a tyrannical government.
Over the past century it has also had ancillary benefits, such as dissuading aggressive regimes from attempting to invade our country, e.g. the Japanese during WWII. Perhaps you should spend less time writing such drivel, and more time on learning about the history of our country.
Additionally, I implore you to look into how many of our constitutional rights have actually been preserved. I think you will be surprised to discover that only about half of our constitutional rights have been preserved thus far, so the government has actually become a very big threat to the liberties our founding fathers so vehemently wanted their progeny to have.
Unfortunately, so many Americans have become so fixated on things that are obviously the impetus for the intellectual degradation we have experienced in this country over the past century that they may actually share the same asinine opinion as yours. So, in actuality, twaddle such as ?American Idol? frightens me more than a man carrying a gun in public.
Although, I do think it was foolish of that man to carry an assault rifle to a presidential speech, because it incites so much emotion; all wise folks know that rationality is thrown out the window when emotion enters the picture. Consequently, this incident may actually do more harm than the good he likely had hoped for.
What I hope for is that Americans would spend more time educating themselves, so we don?t devolve into a country with a more oppressive government, which is clearly what is happening.
All the best,
Humble Gentleman
Leah,
“And saying “If more people started carrying guns the crime rate would drop big time” is just massive hyperbole and conjecture and, pretty much, wholly without merit or truth.”
Just an FYI:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706
The timing of this is rather ironic given one Lynette Fromme was just released from prison after 34 years for supposedly doing the exact same thing, eh.
Us human rights activists remember her fondly; Squeaky is the Manson child, who, in her own words, merely waved an unloaded gun into then-president (Rethuglican Nixon bootlicker)Ford’s general direction to raise awareness for world peace.
Charges were trumped up, the Establishment took guns from the good and gave them to the babykillers in Vietnam.
Vote Obama. Impeach Bushitler. Go Green. Cindy Sheehan for President.
At first glace, I thought this picture — locals milling around at a political event with weapons slung over their shoulders — was an AP photo forwarded from Tehran …. ‘magine my surprise when I discovered it was the good ol’ US of A.
Humble gentleman: a well thought out response, thanks. I do understand fear and I do understand guns. I just don’t like them and think he shouldn’t have been carrying it. I don’t really think we’re at risk of a tyrannical government necessitating guns in this day and age.
Havok: it’s unable to be proved; therefore it is certainly hyperbole and conjecture. My comment about being without merit or truth is my own hyperbole.
Now what if a group has shown up and started burning American flags by the dozen in front of these armed idiots — also completely legal by the way.
I wonder if they and people like “Annoyed” above would have been such strict Constitutionalists then?
I don’t believe that one can truly say that a person does not have violent “intent” when they clearly have the equipment to commit violence. Do you trust their word? Ultimately, there are only two things to know; 1) Did the “protester” show up at the rally because Obama was there? and 2) Did the “protester” bring his weapon because Obama was there? If the answer to these questions is yes, then one must *assume* violent intent.
1. “You’re just afraid of people (openly) carrying guns because you’re afraid of what you don’t understand.” — Reactions would be the same if these people were carrying knives. They’re carrying deadly weapons to a place where they don’t belong in anybody’s hands but law enforcement.
2. “These people are just protecting their rights.” — They’re protecting their pride and purposely causing others to fear them and fear opposing their views openly. *That* tramples upon free speech.
3. “Criminals cause deaths, not guns.” — Yes, but if you carry a deadly weapon around with you (gun, knife, lead pipe, whatever) it increases the chances of you using it on someone you disagree with simply because it’s there with you; then you become the criminal. That is why police officers are put through a lot of mental conditioning and scrutiny to try to keep them from abusing that sidearm they carry around. (Unfortunately, too many are treating the new tasers like they?re toys.)
I like your thinking, Tony.
And there will be no name calling in my comments. If you call me an ‘idiot’ or anything else, your comment will be deleted.
Joseph, I wholeheartedly agree.
Just imagine if Obama supporters started showing up with guns. Do you think the situation might escalate… just a little, eh? Would they all just be exercising their 2nd Amendment rights then?
“If a man shows up at a Presidential rally – hell, any rally for that matter – with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder, perhaps, just perhaps, it’s not a simple carrying of arms but a statement about what that individual would like to do with that weapon? Just a thought, really.”
> Psychiatrists call that “projection”.
“there is a sense of what is acceptable, isn’t there?”
> When Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, it wasn’t considered ‘acceptable’.
“Decorate it with polka dots or tweed. Make it as individual as you are!’ Uh uh, isn’t going to happen.”
> Like these? http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69075 (Those are .22s, not assault rifles. But the bullet for an AR-17 is just a tad bit bigger than a .22 round.)
“The statements this man and the man in New Hampshire are making are very clear and, in my opinion, frightening.”
> It’s frightening to you that people have rights and speak up for those rights?
Hi Leah -
I can understand your thoughts and your feelings on this issue. Guns make it easy to kill a person. A knife or a fist requires much more personal reaction, a more bold decision and serious intent. With a gun someone can go off and snap and with one simple press of the trigger the object of their rage is dead. Firearms, when used offensively are indeed scary and, in fact, scare the living daylights out of me.
That being said a simple look through crime rate statistics will show you that areas with the highest violent crime rates typically also have the more restrictive handgun laws. Look at Chicago here in the states. Handguns are all but illegal to own yet people are dying by handgun there at an alarming rate in 2009.
What is wrong with responsible citizens legally owning a handgun? Take me for instance. I have complied with all requirements for my Concealed handgun license. I have had more training than many police departments require (including extensive training on safety) and spend time at the range each month. I carry at various times where I am allowed to do so. All the time without anyone knowing and without causing an alarm.
I have no offensive intent planned for my firearms. My wife has gone through the same training and also has no offensive intent planned. They are safe from our children and they are a last resort defensive weapon. The first weapon of choice? “Feet don’t fail me now!” If that fails, I would hope talking could work, I would hope a flashlight could disorient/confuse an attacker and give me escape. If I had to, I would consider taking the life of an attacker to defend my own life or that of my family or in a clear situation where it was readily apparent an innocent 3rd party was in danger and that was the only choice.
Will “invaders” come running at me on the street? Not likely. Will a violent home invasion strike where I live? Not likely. Will my wife get attacked on the street by someone intent on raping her? not likely. All of these things can, have and do happen all over this country each day. Being prepared is a step I have chosen to take. Same reason I have fire extinguishers and smoke alarms in my house. The chance of a fire in the modern house is rare these days. I still protect against that unlikely but potential threat.
These guys at the rallies do nothing to help the issue and are trying to cause alarm. Maybe even showing a veiled (not so veiled, I guess) threat.
Criminals use guns they obtain illegally each day. Look at Juarez, Mexico. 1800 people killed last year by guns.. Guns are highly regulated in Mexico.
No, Abby, it’s frightening to me to see a man walking down the street holding a gun. This is not the wild west, this is not a war-torn country, this is not even a firing range. Express your rights all you want but if I see someone with a gun or any other weapon, I get just a little bit scared.
Here’s the problems I see from on this subject:
Yes we saw the guy in the white dress shirt etc with the semi auto who looked quite civil looking, but that wasn’t the whole story. Various reporters throughout the day said their were a couple people (around 10-13) with that type of gun. One CNN reporter was interviewing some people in a pro-reform crowd when some angry guy came around (not the same) the corner with a semi-auto around his shoulder angrily yelling anti-reform stuff.
That’s problem enough, but the bigger problem is that the guy probably wouldn’t do anything yet he obviously had about 5 secret service/police detail following him closely and that’s a serious problem. If there were about 10 people with semi-autos and they all had a couple SS/Police following them, is the President as safe as he would be if these people didn’t show up with their guns?
However, this is definately a new thing from looks and sounds of it (people showing up to Presidential rallies with guns). Common sense would just state, no guns within or outside of the President’s general location for your national leader’s overall safety.
Blake
Thanks Mike. Agreed that banning guns doesn’t help. In London knife crime is rife and there is also plenty of gun violence. I simply don’t like them, that’s all. You want to own one, that’s fine. Just don’t get upset with those of us who don’t own guns getting a bit frightened of those that do.
Blake: Common sense would just state, no guns within or outside of the President’s general location for your national leader’s overall safety.
Agreed
I love how a handful of people have posted the EXACT same comment on every blog discussing this story.
RP: Funny. Thanks for pointing that out.
“I don’t really think we’re at risk of a tyrannical government necessitating guns in this day and age.”
Leah:
That kind of naivete is what leads to tyrannical governments through insidious measures imposed upon the people of a country. I’m sure Germans in the 1910s and 1920s never thought their government would end up with a leader like Hitler that would end up leading their country to commit one of the greatest crimes upon humanity in the history of the world.
The lack of consideration that you’ve conspicuously made apparent reinforces the fact that this country has experienced intellectual degradation over the past century.
Humble Gentleman
Humble Gentleman: ‘intellectual degradation’ I beg your pardon? I’ve got a Master’s in International Relations thank you very much. I didn’t get to where I am by being stupid. I actually agree with your point about Germany but if at any point in time the US was open for tyranny it was the past eight years, not currently.
Leah
That is a deal I can agree with. As long as you aren’t trying to see them banned and understand that most of the people who go through the hoops to obtain them legally have a great track record with safety and responsible use.
I would never get upset at someone for being upset. I can see why folks would be scared. I would love to help folks get over that upset through understanding the legal uses and the good that can come from owning.
Criminals look for targets that are easy. If you are in an area where guns are illegal that is one less fear for the criminal because only the criminal element will be carrying a firearm. You see it in London, I am sure.
I can agree that you have a right to be a bit frightened if you can agree I have a right to -responsibly- own and carry. I don’t carry open (even though I am in a state where it is allowed) for a couple reasons:
1.) I don’t want to cause fear or alarm.
2.) I don’t want to ratchet up the debate on firearms laws, I am fine having discussions and rational debates on pros and cons of firearms laws that allow for carry. I think a lot in the open carry crowd want to just yell and scream to try and prove a point.
3.) I don’t want a criminal to know I am carrying. Kind of makes one a first target while innocently minding their own business at a bank or store.
My hope is that the only use my firearms see is at the range, maybe even a competition someday.
Humble Gentlemen: Actually it was pretty obvious to a few, but no one thought it would go that far (most didn’t know of the death camps until after the war). Everyone was down and out and had nothing so they all jumped on board to find a scapegoat. It wasn’t like one day the Nazi party started its hate campaign. The loud and ignorant gave force to the Nazi movement and forced out all the moderate voices in Government, accusing it of betraying the German people, working for the rich and the usual you know who scapegoats).
With the Nazi party having the people behind them, they were able to bully the power away from the legislature, Hilter gave an ultimatum to them to give him full powers for one term. Those parties who didn’t comply were attacked and the first thing Hitler did when get got his powers: Was disband the legislature. The problem was that moderate people and the Jewish community didn’t feel they had the power or means to battle a very loud force. The biggest similarity in the States I see to the “extreme” today is not the liberals, the liberals are the scapegoats along with the usual know who scapegoats. Just like they were back then.
When people start using their rights to possibly insight fear or do things which aren’t exactly common sense or civil, what they’re doing may be in their right, but is it truly “right?” Some people out there have to be careful what they wish for, especially at these townhalls. “Revolution” can sometimes make an illusion of what is now become reality later.
Leah:
That’s great that you successfully completed graduate school, and my reference to intellectual degradation wasn’t an insinuation that you are by any means stupid. I apologize for my terse response. Although, I intended for that reference to be all-encompassing, so being closed minded would qualify.
Now, I’m just as guilty. I could be so much wiser and have a much better education if it wasn’t for the things that have degraded our intellect. Our intellectual potential is formulated during our adolescence. If you take a peek at our founding fathers, and the kind of education they had, even in their low teens; you will find we greatly pale in comparison, in both wisdom and intellect.
I agree with your feeling vis-a-vis the G.W. Bush administration, but most of the laws enacted during his administration are still in force, which lends further support to the fact that tyrannical governments can come about through insidious measures imposed on people by prior governance. Our forefathers that built this country had the foresight to see this risk, thus the second amendment was created.
Humble Gentleman
Additionally, quite a few of those laws were enacted by leveraging fear.
HG: MANY of those laws were enacted by leveraging fear. Indeed I discussed the use of fear by politicians to enact laws in my MA dissertation.