Guns at Presidential events

[pscot]

Does the 2nd amendment give people the right to carry a gun into a public venue where the President is appearing? If someone tries to bring a gun to such an event, does the Secret Service have the right to disarm them and forbid them to enter. Is possession of a gun at such an event a de facto threat to the President?

[goclark]

1. Kicking for answers ~ Dr. Gates was going into his own house

and he got arrested for "talking back" to an officer.
Don't believe he had a gun.

People were arrested all the time during civil rights marches and they didn't have guns. They were arrested "while Negro."

They were bitten by dogs in broad daylight and nothing that I am aware of happened to those officers holding the dogs. :shrug:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. Dr. Gates wasn't going into his house, he was in his house and had been for a little while.

[goclark]

10. Thanks for the clarification

So he was arrested for being in his house,that makes it worse of course.
Arrested while being in your house.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. Exercising a Right at the wrong time.

While it may have been Dr. Gates right to insult Officer Crowley's mother it may not have been in Dr. Gates best interest if he wished not to be arrested.

[LAGC]

110. I hope you're not saying it was Gates' fault he got arrested.

The cop clearly coaxed him outside for the sole purpose of being able to arrest him once he was outside of the safety zone of speaking his mind in his home. Only then did it become a "public disturbance."

[slackmaster]

77. What does people being unlawfully harassed by police have to do with the subject of this thread?

:shrug:

[Faygo Kid]

2. Ask Squeaky Fromme. She's out of jail soon.

Pointed a gun at Gerald Ford in 1974. You count the years. I guarantee you that a-hole today had at least two Secret Service snipers zeroed in on the top of his head if he had made a move for that gun. You know history? Then you know no guns near the president.

[graywarrior]

3. Carrying a gun in NH

Q: Can I carry a pistol or revolver openly, say in an exposed belt holster?

A: Yes. Furthermore, you do not need a License to Carry (the piece of paper says “Pistol/Revolver License”) to carry a loaded handgun UNconcealed — that is, visible, for example in an exposed holster — unless you’re in a vehicle. (See the previous answer about vehicles.)

Keep in mind that some people may panic when they see a gun, and if they call the police, the police may come to investigate — but the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office has made it clear that open carry is a right, and that another person’s “annoyance and alarm” doesn’t supersede that right.

On the one hand, we will indeed lose our rights if we don’t exercise them, but on the other hand, it’s not smart to frighten or antagonize people, especially if you scare enough people to make the news — which may lead to legislation restricting open carry. Use good judgment. (Hint: look and act like a responsible citizen. It helps to be well-dressed.) Also, from a practical (as opposed to “political”) point of view, if you’re carrying openly in a place where there might actually be an armed criminal attack, you’ll be the first target.

[PavePusher]

39. Not quite correct.

"Also, from a practical (as opposed to “political”) point of view, if you’re carrying openly in a place where there might actually be an armed criminal attack, you’ll be the first target."

There is no statistically meaningful data to support this oft-made claim.

In many places you will be hassled by LEO's, but if you use that as a basis for abandoning your Civil Rights, a lot of Civil Rights Activists may disagree with you. Strenuously.

[HillbillyBob]

5. I don't know how the 2nd amendment applies to a gun in the Pres presence,

but when I went to the pre election event where soon to be VP Joe Biden was to speak in Danville Va, my pepper spray was taken from me.
I have it for stray dogs and muggers, mostly muggers, hell it had been on my key ring so long that it was just another dangley thing on my key ring, I had been violently mugged 3x in Fla. I had no intention of using it unless someone was trying to rob me.
I would count a loaded gun in the Presidents presence as an implicit threat.

[sharesunited]

6. The current misinterpretation of the 2nd should be revisited ASAP. Guns are a menace.

[tridim]

11. That's a good word for it. Menace.

Hunting, target practice and home protection are fine, just keep the damn things off our streets.

[PavePusher]

41. So, I can protect myself at home...

but not on "our streets".

Nice to know the geographical limits of my Civil Rights. Thanks.

[tridim]

44. Yes. OUR streets, not YOURS. Get it yet?

It's not only about you and your beloved tools of death, it's about all of us and our right to not be intimidated by gun toting idiots in the public square. You don't get to make the rules just because you have a gun on your hip.

[fedupinhouston]

59. "Our" streets...

...indicates the streets are MINE too.

It has nothing to do with "beloved tools of death" or intimidating anyone.

Simply put tridim, you may not LIKE it, but the government is there to enforce my right to do it. Sorry, but YOU don't get to tell others with guns on their hips to take mine away just because you're scared.

I really am sorry that you harbor such an irrational fear of an inanimate object. Seriously - I am. I wish there were something I could do to assist you but other than pointing you in the direction of actual facts, there isn't much I can offer.

You may need to seek professional help with those fears. You can find very qualified professionals to assist you in overcoming them in your local Yellow Pages under either "Psychiatrist" or "Firearms Instructor".

The choice is yours to make.

[tridim]

79. Yours, but not ALL yours.

Why do I even bother, you really don't get it. It's all about you. Always will be.

[fedupinhouston]

80. No they're not all mine

They arent all YOURS either. As such, you do not get to restrict my rights based upon your fears.

If anyone doesnt seem to be getting it or thinks its all about him, that would be YOU. I'm not telling you that you MUST carry a gun. On the other hand, you are telling me that I SHOULD NOT.

Exactly who is attempting to force his views on whom?

[Abq_Sarah]

122. And it's not all about you?

Seriously? You want to restrict a constitutional right to make yourself feel better. How selfish can you get?

[HALO141]

67. There is no such right.

A "right" not to "feel intimidated?" Are you serious?

Please provide some sort of documentation, definition or scholarly opinion wherein any such "right" to feel or not feel a certain way is proffered or championed. (IOW... Got one of those linky things?)

nah, didn't think so.

[tridim]

78. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

All of which are threatened by your publicly displayed weapon, fired or not. Your weapon is no concern of mine if you just leave it at home, but when you flaunt it in public it most definitely is.

When the President is involved then it becomes a national security issue.

[fedupinhouston]

81. NONE of those are threatened by a publicly displayed weapon..

That is merely your belief with zero basis in fact or reality.

The mere presence of a weapon is not a threat to your life, liberty or pursuit of happiness.

You said it yourself - my weapon is no concern of yours. You do not get to dictate that I must leave it at home, anymore than I get to dictate that you must carry one.

[AlinPA]

93. So you are OK with carrying/hiding guns around the president?

[fedupinhouston]

95. I dont have a problem with it.

The GUN is not the problem. The person using it is.

Besides, people are already carrying/hiding guns around the President.

What you probably meant to ask is if anyone had a problem with private citizens being armed around the President. Why not? He is our employee, and employees do not tell the boss what to do.

Perhaps if politicians had to take the same risks as the rest of us in life, like never knowing if people were armed around them, they might be more inclined to remember who works for whom.

[iverglas]

96. what a moronic statement

What you probably meant to ask is if anyone had a problem with private citizens being armed around the President.

Well aren't you just too clever by half.

Why not? He is our employee, and employees do not tell the boss what to do.

The President of your country is not your employee. Get a fucking grip.


Perhaps if politicians had to take the same risks as the rest of us in life, like never knowing if people were armed around them, they might be more inclined to remember who works for whom.

Yeah. How many of your predecessors in your current employment have been the victims of homicide or attempted homicide or threats of homicide?


Moronic beyond belief. Statements that are moronic to the point of evidence of sickness in the head ... or whatever bit of the body it might be where ethics and conscience are stored.

[AlinPA]

97. Unbelievable. I'm not going to take this any further.

[fedupinhouston]

98. What is so unbelievable?

There are people armed - legally - around the President all the time. That's a fact my friend. Cops, SS agents, protective details for other heads of state, etc. Any one of these people could take a shot at him at anytime.

Anyone who is intending to harm him will do so regardless of the proscription against guns around him. Like it or not, that is also a simple fact.

The President is not a King, or some mythical figure. He is merely one more public servant doing his job. Nothing more. Stop idolizing the man and you may realize that.

Maybe it offends your sensibilities to have that pointed out, but facts are facts. He IS our employee. We do not answer to him. His comfort is NOT superior to my rights. He may want to THINK differently, but simply put, he is wrong.

Now, do i think just any random person should be allowed up close and personal? Of course not. After all, regardless of which moron holds the seat in any given term, he is still our Head of State. On the other hand, some guy in a crowd who isnt going to get in range of him anyway is hardly worth concern.

[AlinPA]

100. Your first reply said "What you probably meant to ask is if anyone had a problem with private

citizens being armed around the President. Why not?"

That answer says anyone- underline that- anyone is OK to be armed around the President. That reply is unbelievable to me.

Now you say " of course not" to "just any random person being close to the President"

Also, don't blame me for idolizing him just because I'm speaking out for his safety. Police officers look out for the safety of a lot of people whom they don't "idolize".

[fedupinhouston]

101. WHY is it unbelievable for you?

Seriously. Think about it for a moment. The ones who are going to do him harm are going to try regardless of whether you try to keep them away or not.

The average person is not going to shoot him just for the hell of it.

People are armed around the President all the time. That is a fact.

Of course I also made the mistake of assuming you would take the comment in context of the discussion, but that was apparently expecting too much.

Oh - one other thing - cops don't look out for anyone's safety (other than those in protective custody). That isn't their job.

[iverglas]

104. I believe that what might have been unbelievable

was that anyone would be so ... dis... dis... disingenuous, that's it ... as to say what you said.

[HALO141]

92. Don't try to make this personal

I do not carry a "publicly displayed weapon." But, even if I did, that does not deprive you of :

1) Life - Unless you get killed with it, someone else's weapon has not affected your life one iota.
2) Liberty - Unless you are denied your personal liberties by threat of violence your life, again, has not been affected one iota.
3) PERSUIT of Happiness - You should be allowed to TRY to do the things that make you happy so long as your doing them does not interfere with the liberties of others. That is not the same thing as having your happiness guaranteed.


Further, the authority and responsibilities of the Federal Government are spelled out in the United States Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence from which you quoted. And of the rights that are enumerated in the Amendments to the Constitution, happiness isn't included. (But "keep and bear arms" is.)

[rl6214]

114. You don't get to make the rules

just because the thought of someone carrying a gun intimidates you.

[HillbillyBob]

13. guns in the hands of idiots or crazy people are the menace

I keep guns for that very reason.
Once a long time ago it made the difference. I had these krazy kreestians trying to burn a cross leaned up against the front of my 100 year old wood frame house.

The 'reason' I was gay who had diverse friends, black, lesbian, and gasp straight married folks who came to visit or to buy the used furniture I would buy at yard sales and such to refinish and sell to keep food on the table and the mortgage paid.

I got the ticket for 50$ for shooting them in the ass of their white sheet costumes as they ran away. It was not buck shot it was loaded with rock salt as I did not want attempted murder charges which would have landed me in Draper/Alabama prison for f ing life. At the time 50$ would be 1/3 of my then mortgage payment, or the cost of groceries for the month.

I am not exactly an overt gun enthusiast, hell I don't use it much except for occasionally I don't hunt anymore our neighbor brings us venison for being able to hunt on our land and the fact they are good neighbors.

I do want to retain the right to keep guns, for when or if I want to hunt, or if we have some of these town hall nazis show up and really start trouble.
I always give a warning shot in the air before I start shootin at the white sheets.

[Mike K]

17. Guns Are A Menace:

So are aggressive, assaultive criminals.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. It has been just recently...the Heller decision. A good call by SCOTUS

Most of us hope for that to continue and tear down the illegal laws in Wash DC, Chicago and NYC.

[depakid]

23. Actually, when this sort of deal spills over into violence- which is probability

It will end up doing a lot of damage to your worthless cause- and lead to the serious limitations on that decision- if not eventual reversal.

[bossy22]

62. this sort of stuff

is independent of the consequences from the heller decision. this was allowed prior to the heller decision

plus you need to brush up on your con law history, it takes a lot for a reversal of a MAJOR right

[fedupinhouston]

102. Unfortunately for you...

...it hasn't spilled over into violence in the past 20 years or so.

I realize it is difficult for you to accept that your beliefs are wrong, but they are. Gun ownership in the US is up - substantially i might add. Concealed carry is WAY up in the past 20 years - with only two states forbidding some form of it and ~40 being SHALL issue or no permit required. Open carry is becoming more and more common. Yet, crime is DROPPING.

Its OK - I'm sure those who believed the earth was flat had the same problem accepting the facts as well. Don't worry - you'll find a way to deal with it eventually.

[Euromutt]

117. Ah, how I missed your powers of prediction

I do have to admire the determination with which you keep making predictions with such certainty, in spite of the fact that they're based on nothing except your own wishful thinking.

[sharesunited]

58. Be sure and send a valentine to Tony Scalia.

[rl6214]

116. Grow up

Do your parents know you are posting here?

[Tim01]

25. Humans are the menace. My guns don't bother anybody. nt

[fedupinhouston]

29. No they arent...

...you're just scared of an inanimate object. I recognize that you have a problem with them, but your irrational fear does not invalidate my rights.

Thanks for playing though...we have some nice parting gifts for you on your way out.

[tridim]

46. But your irrational fear is correct when it infringes on everyone else's right to not get shot?

That's just sick.

Leave your irrational fear at home, and please lock it in a safe so more innocent people don't get killed.

[fedupinhouston]

51. What irrational fear am I demonstrating?

Why should I leave a perfectly serviceable tool at home just because it scares you? My mere ownership or carriage of a firearm in no way endangers your life or the life of any innocent person for that matter. If you believe it does...well...you're welcome to believe in pixie dust too.

You really do NOT have a right to be free from harm, no matter how much you would like to. You see, for you to be free from any harm, or even potential harm, requires others to be overtly harmed - either through confiscation of their property and/or restriction of their legal actions.

What is sick my friend is believing that your baseless and irrational fears somehow trump my rights.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fedupinhouston]

57. So exercising my rights...

...makes me an horrible human being? You have a pretty twisted standard of review.

So besides being pretty damned ignorant and selfish, you're also exceedingly judgmental and insulting....got it.

[HALO141]

68. Thanks!

I found that wonderfully amusing.


I don't care about your opinions (or what you may perceive as your rights) any more than you do about mine so I guess we're all done here, right?

[iverglas]

82. my gosh

Somebody's reply to

What is sick my friend is believing that your baseless and irrational fears somehow trump my rights.

being called sick and irrational by our charming new friend got deleted?

How exactly could anything have been uglier than that?

Oh, should anybody be curious, fedupinhouston did start it:

fedupinhouston
Wed Aug-12-09 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #6

29. No they arent...

...you're just scared of an inanimate object. I recognize that you have a problem with them, but your irrational fear does not invalidate my rights.

Thanks for playing though...we have some nice parting gifts for you on your way out.

A real charmer. Allegations of mental illness, and delusions of grandeur to boot.



typo fixed

[iverglas]

74. does the word "presumption" mean anything to you?

And no, I'm not talking about Florida law.


Thanks for playing though...we have some nice parting gifts for you on your way out.

:eyes:

[rd_kent]

37. People who use guns ILLEGALLY are a menace.

[rl6214]

113. Your point of view is a menace

[cognoscere]

7. A long time ago,

I went to hear Lieberman speak when he was a candidate for VP. Anyone who had any kind of knife, even a tiny little thing with a one inch blade, had to leave them outside on the ground or not get in.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Well, we're mixing issues here. Keep in mind

Firearms laws not only vary from state to state around open or concealed carry, but private venues can impose restrictions beyond that allowed by law in a public space.

If I'm hosting a fundraiser for Joe Biden in my living room, I am free to require you to surrender or leave behind all weapons, and any pink shoes you might be wearing, as a condition of entry. If I was holding that same fundraiser on public property, I could forbid neither weapons, nor pink shoes.

[Hoopla Phil]

8. My thoughts.

If it is legal then by definition it cannot be a de facto threat.

With regard to taking the firearm into a public building where the POTUS is it will depend on how the states laws are written.

With regard to taking the firearm into a private building it would depend on the owner of the building or who was legally leasing the building the the event. If they say no guns then no. If they do not say then it would be legal.

With regard to having the gun on a public street with the POTUS driving by or being inside a building then it depends on the states laws but most likely it would be legal to carry.


As a side. There was a guy that did this during a campaign stop of President Obama's. SS cleared it but the local cops arrested the guy. He was prosecuted and acquitted. He is now suing the PD that arrested him.

[doc03]

12. When I saw John Kerry when he was running for President

you had to go through a metal detector to get within a block of him. If you were protesting against GWB you were put behind a fence a blocks away.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Frankly, on public property, those are unconstitutional infringments.

4th amendment style.

We need to fully reclaim that right. It's just going to suck to have to clean off all the dogshit Bush rubbed all over it.

[HALO141]

70. Then I guess that means

Obama's got a bigger sack that Kerry.

[orwell]

9. Repost of mine from another thread...

If you knew anything about the Secret Service, they secure an extremely large area at any location or on any road the President travels. They go so far as to soldering manhole covers on Presidential parade routes. The Secret Service was there a minimum of 5 days before the trip securing the route, doing background checks on anyone who would be remotely in contact with the President. If he is any kind of an open air forum they will secure sight lines to the stage for more than a mile, to avoid the possibility of a long range sniper shot.

They consider it a National Security issue, which overrides state law.

The reason he was allowed to carry was that he was not on the Presidential parade route, nor in the hall. He would not be allowed to carry a gun into the hall where the President spoke or be armed on the parade route. It is too much for the Secret Service to control. Could you imagine the security nightmare if hundreds of people were legally carrying guns along a presidential parade route?

I know people who have worked for the Secret Service. They take their job very seriously. They are also very good at it.

Nobody who has a gun will be allowed anywhere near the President unless they are required to have one to protect him. It is basic National Security. I don't even think soldiers were allowed to have weapons when either Bush or Cheney addressed them.

It is a basic security issue, no matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. Any lawful gun owner should see and accept this basic reality.

[iverglas]

15. a voice of reason

Always nice to see, although it usually only happens when one of these "gun" threads gets flushed to the Guns forum. ;)

[havocmom]

16. yep

:thumbsup:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Key point that some in other threads forget...the Secret Service decided he was not a threat

There are security zones, the closer the protected person, the tighter it gets. The doofus while public was not within the zone to be considered a threat.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. That's what I said.

If the Secret Service had seen him as even the slightest threat he would have been taken into custody.

[raimius]

109. Agreed.

Temporary security zones around the POTUS are reasonable.
Where the President is, should be considered a "sensitive place" (from Heller).

[biermeister]

24. The guy is a marketing genius!

Apparently he didn't break any laws & was able to get his message on national tv, etc. There are probably 100 post on DU regarding him. All that free exposure.

IMHO, people are making much more about this than is necessary. Wow, he had a gun, big deal. He didn't threaten anyone or he'd be in jail. I am not condoning what he did but I am not feeding the frenzy either.

I chock it up to a slow news day and a lot of gullible (& fearful) people. Go back to watching America's Next Supermodel or whatever else you were doing

[jeepnstein]

26. I've worked inside such events.

The Secret Service and local law enforcement can and will disarm anyone entering the secure zones of such an event. The entry points are always clearly marked that weapons are prohibited. If you are found in possession of a firearm inside the secure area you will be prosecuted at the very least. I can't imagine what anyone would be trying to prove by insisting that their 2nd Amendment Right overrides temporary security arrangements for a visiting President.

Citizens cannot be disarmed just because the President is visiting their town. They can, however, be required to be unarmed to enter into the secure bubble around him. I've never seen a door-to-door canvassing for arms along a motorcade route, for instance, but people are subjected to a search before entering the secure area. I have seen a hunter detained along a motorcade route, the poor guy didn't even know anything about the visit. As soon as the motorcade passed he was free to continue with his hunting. His first clue that he had a problem was the Blackhawk helicopter circling him while local law enforcement moved in on foot.

Considering the level of threat against even a wildly popular President, the security is surprisingly unobtrusive to an average citizen. The security bubble is usually only in place for a matter of hours.

[Statistical]

30. It is more that the Secret Service and Local LEO work with the laws rather than bypass them.

Most states allow private property owners to prohibit firearms and this includes some areas people consider "public" but are actually private such as stadiums and some parks. Some states prohibit firearms in certain public buildings such schools, courthouses, and other govt buildings.

There is no need for the Secret Service to violate local laws or the 2nd.

The secret service could setup the town hall in a school where guns are prohibited and then enforce that prohibition or on private property where the owner prohibits firearms.

In this instance the person with the firearm was on public property. The secret service was smart enough to know the law and setup the event such that any potential gun owner would never be in a position to even have a line of sight to the President while armed.

It is possible to protect the most powerful man in the world while at the same time not violating the rights of the citizenry who elected him.

[iverglas]

32. amazing

It is possible to protect the most powerful man in the world while at the same time not violating the rights of the citizenry who elected him.

And when I say that the real aim of the gun militants is to squat on all the public spaces of your land, leaving no square centimetre free, they squawk.

Yes, it is essential that any loon, hired killer or political adversary not expressly prohibited from possessing/carrying a firearm be at complete liberty to exercise their "right" to do that within shooting distance of your President. The very architecture of your nation would crumble were it not so.

[Statistical]

33. Yup that is what I said.

[raimius]

111. Correct

If you are not banned from having a firearm, you may have one.

[iverglas]

27. okay, so I've figured out what this is about

I'd missed the actual news in my brief visits to the CNN news cycle yesterday.

Obviously a lot of people have done what my first impulse was to do.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/08/12/william_kostric/

"Who was that gun-toting anti-Obama protester?"

Kostric insisted his intentions were peaceful, and that he's not affiliated with Birther groups.

But at least one of those statements doesn't seem to be true. A right-wing activist named "William Kostric," who's left a lot of footprints around the Web, is listed as a "team member" of the Arizona chapter of We the People, the far-right group best known for joining a lawsuit challenging Obama's right to be president based on his not being a U.S. citizen. Kostric told MSNBC he recently moved from Arizona to New Hampshire. (Kostric did not reply to Salon's e-mail request for an interview.)

And on his MySpace page (h/t Lavender Newswire), Kostric also lists as one of his heroes Robert Schultz, the anti-tax activist and We the People founder who spent a ton of his own money on ads promoting the Birther movement. At a press conference in December, Schultz told reporters: "This nation is headed towards a vortex of a Constitutional crisis. While on the one hand, the Obama citizenship issue is so simple a schoolchild could grasp it, if left festering and unanswered, it possesses the potential to send our nation into a time of great peril."

Kostric's MySpace profile also lists among his heroes Randy Weaver, the white supremacist and right-wing activist who survived the Ruby Ridge confrontation with federal agents, along with Ayn Rand's John Galt, Thomas Jefferson, libertarian/GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul and William Wallace, the Scottish resistance leader portrayed in Mel Gibson's "Braveheart."

The profile also includes, as one of Kostric's "Top 12 friends," the Free State Movement, a group organizing libertarians to move to New Hampshire and expand on the state's "Live Free or Die" credo, and ultimately secede from the union. A "William Kostric" also signed two pledges at PledgeBank, a site that lets people organize around various causes. Kostric's two pledges include: "move to New Hampshire by 12/31/2008 where I will work to bring about a society in which government’s maximum role is protecting life, liberty, and property" -- the credo of Free State Movement members -- and "refuse to accept a national ID card," a cause among many far-right libertarians.

Duh.


http://www.pledgebank.com/search?q=kostric

His pledge:

"William Kostric
move to New Hampshire by 12/31/2008 where I will work to bring about a society in which government’s maximum role is protecting life, liberty, and property
refuse to accept a national ID card

Turn over a gun militant, and you find ...

[HALO141]

72. I'm really astounded

at the amount of time you're willing to devote to this BS.

[iverglas]

87. well colour me amazed

that anyone would have devoted a nanosecond of their life to typing out what you just said.

The fact that I took five seconds of mine to read it ... well, I'll just commemorate that little lost moment here.

RIP, 5 seconds of my life.

[AndyfromNC]

119. Correction.

Randy Weaver was not a white supremist. He went to a single meeting of white supremist group, at the behest of an undercover government plant, and then refused to go back.

Carry on.

[iverglas]

121. oooooh

That was a really important bit of, uh, news.


One hesitates even to post this, but: nice company.

http://www.williamkostric.com/2009/08/william-kostric-and-randy-weaver-factor.html

Would you be happier with "white separatist"?

Suits me.

Now, where did Weaver meet that government plant ...

[slackmaster]

28. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms

Does the 2nd amendment give people the right to carry a gun into a public venue where the President is appearing?

No, that right already existed when the Second Amendment was written.

If someone tries to bring a gun to such an event, does the Secret Service have the right to disarm them and forbid them to enter.

I think it depends on the situation. In an enclosed space where a person might come close enough to actually be a threat to the President, the host of the event has the power to set ground rules including prohibiting firearms. Out in the open, not so much.

Is possession of a gun at such an event a de facto threat to the President?

Obviously not, since the President is surrounded with people who are armed with guns.

[iverglas]

31. hahahahaha

Is possession of a gun at such an event a de facto threat to the President?
Obviously not, since the President is surrounded with people who are armed with guns.

Oh, you couldn't make this shit up.

[Hugabear]

35. I'm sure that Lincoln, Arthur, McKinley, JFK and Reagan would have agreed with that sentiment

n/t

[iverglas]

38. I hope you don't think I do!

Mind, I wouldn't call it sentiment. I'd call it gun militant demagoguery. Disingenuous to the end.

[Hugabear]

40. Not at all

I was agreeing with you, referring to the notion that because SS agents have guns, then it's safe for other people to carry guns around the president.

[iverglas]

42. and pretending

that it would occur to someone asking the question "Is possession of a gun at such an event a de facto threat to the President?" that anyone in a million years would imagine they were talking about the Secret Service or wanted to hear about the Secret Service.

Maybe it was just a little gun militant humour.

[slackmaster]

54. Straw Man

...the notion that because SS agents have guns, then it's safe for other people to carry guns around the president.

That is not what I wrote, and certainly not what I meant. I was responding concisely to the question posed in the OP as written, i.e.:

Is possession of a gun at such an event a de facto threat to the President?

Given that SS agents possess guns and are around the President, clearly possession of a gun is not a de facto threat.

RIF

:dunce:

[Hugabear]

61. You really think so?

Friggin' unbelievable.

"Given that SS agents possess guns and are around the President, clearly possession of a gun is not a de facto threat."

All those heavily armed Secret Service agents sure did a lot of good protecting Reagan from a crazed gunman, didn't they?

[slackmaster]

63. The point is, they didn't pose a threat

Therefore the presence of someone armed with a gun is not a de facto threat.

What's important is WHO has them and WHY.

:dunce:

:hi:

[Hugabear]

64. I seriously cannot believe you continue to advocate this

Take the following scenario:

A right-wing nutjob, who has never committed a crime in his life, believes that Obama is the biggest threat to America. Because this man has never committed a crime, he's allowed to own a gun, and even has a CCW permit. He intends to take matters into his own hands. So he shows up at an event where he knows Obama will be, and he is carrying his concealed 9mm pistol.

Since the Secret Service cannot read his mind, there's no way for them to know of this man's plans.

But according to you, this man is not a defacto threat.

[slackmaster]

65. No, that is not what I said

Reading Is Fundamental.

[iverglas]

83. you're not catching on

Posting in the Guns forum always reminds me of what my psychologist said about trying to win against a psychopath. Don't even start playing. Because they make the rules, and you don't know what they are.

Our friend slackmaster is pretending that when a person sees the question

"Is possession of a gun at such an event a de facto threat to the President?"

it is reasonable for that person read it as

"Is possession of a gun at such an event by anyone, including a member of the Secret Service, a de facto threat to the President?"

And he's pretending to be that person.

Around here, every day is April Fool's!

[TPaine7]

85. Thanks for the confirmation

I knew I was right:

I imagine that you know a lot more than I do about these issues {psychopathology, narcissism, delusional mental illnesses, etc.}, having heard all about them from numerous experts for decades.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=245974&mesg_id=246961

Of course your psychologist talks to you about psychopathology. And of course your psychologist was "warning" you about “them” (wink, wink).

Thanks for the confirmation.

[iverglas]

86. yes, dear

Of course your psychologist talks to you about psychopathology. And of course your psychologist was "warning" you about “them” (wink, wink).

Think it through, now.

If I were the psychopath, and the psychologist were warning me against myself, well, he would actually have been treating me for a delusional psychosis, wouldn't he?

:rofl:

(It's a psychiatry/psychology joke. The layperson might say "split personality" or, quite inaccurately and inappropriately, "schizophrenia". And the actual incidence of a psychopathy-psychosis dual diagnosis is, well, look that one up.)

The psychologist was speaking generally. The individual under discussion was a substance abuser, and many long-time substance abusers exhibit behaviours that are the same as in various personality disorders - antisocial, narcissistic, psyhopathic. Ultimately, well after my time ended, he was diagnosed as having bipolar disorder, but it was masked by the substance abuse. I was dealing with the behaviours: the game.


But hey, Master Paine. Thanks for the illustration of your ethics.

Falsely alleging that another member of DU has a psychological disorder, by way of insult.

My own disorder is post-traumatic stress. And I've learned that one way to deal with it is not to tolerate insulting fools.

[TPaine7]

88. Oh my, did I offend you old woman?

:nopity:


Your whining might be more touching if you weren't such a pathetic hypocrite. You've claimed I had mental issues, Ancient One, but then that was OK, wasn't it?

I admit I dish it out, but only to the most deserving targets--like you. Sometimes the "Goddess of Truth and Beauty" gets her due.

I can talk respectfully to the person on DU with the smallest IQ, the tiniest vocabulary, the foggiest grasp of logic--so long as she doesn't insult or condescend to me (or others). You, on the other hand, love to hide behind subject matter technicalities and the tedious nitpicking of grammar and spelling. And you insult and abuse continuously. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.



One of the most pathetic things in this world is a sensitive bully. :puke:

[iverglas]

89. sweetie

You've claimed I had mental issues, Ancient One, but then that was OK, wasn't it?

I'm not the one who hauled out the sob story about being terrorized by a bad man with a gun when I was a little boy, and then claimed that it had created a firm resolve in me to make sure that there were guns in every nook and cranny of the land.

A child who experiences something like that doesn't have "mental issues" (what crude and unsophisticated language). But they will have residual psychological/emotional effects from the trauma in most cases. And identifying with the aggressor and resolving never to be "a victim" again is one of the reaaaaaally big ones. And not a healthy one.


I can talk respectfully to the person on DU with the smallest IQ, the tiniest vocabulary, the foggiest grasp of logic

Yes, we saw a little of that just yesterday in your little chat with a third party, didn't we? Everybody loves to be patronized by somebody barely out of Pampers. It's soooo respectful.


And you insult and abuse continuously. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

I did say: I do not tolerate insulting fools. I dish out exactly what the spew spewed by fools merit, and I take their insulting and abusive spew very well. I simply do not tolerate it.

[TPaine7]

90. *Shudder*

sweetie

I ignored "dear" so you went straight to the gutter, didn't you?

Contrary to what you may believe, I am not Stalin, Hitler or Hannibal Lecter. I don't deserve such abuse.

I'm not the one who hauled out the sob story about being terrorized by a bad man with a gun when I was a little boy, and then claimed that it had created a firm resolve in me to make sure that there were guns in every nook and cranny of the land.

A child who experiences something like that doesn't have "mental issues" (what crude and unsophisticated language). But they will have residual psychological/emotional effects from the trauma in most cases. And identifying with the aggressor and resolving never to be "a victim" again is one of the reaaaaaally big ones. And not a healthy one.

And neither am I, at least not the version of me who inhabits this universe. Are you getting your universes crossed again? Are you diagnosing other people based on your "imagination"?

I have enjoyed tearing down your sophistries and pointing and laughing as you condescended up, but this is just sad. I am reminded of my original concerns when I first started debating you. It seemed too obvious for you to lecture me about interrupting as you interrupted--too perfect a set up. But you do it continually.

Tell me, iverglas, do you actually believe that I have ever said anything remotely like that at this site? I really want to know. I promise, I won't laugh or mock or make light in any way. I will never reference back to it in any way. If you point out my doing so, I will leave DU for good. You would like that, wouldn't you!

Yes, we saw a little of that just yesterday in your little chat with a third party, didn't we?

Point it out. Respond to the post and I will see it. If I see that I am wrong, I will apologize and write a new and more appropriate post.

Everybody loves to be patronized by somebody barely out of Pampers.

I'm still in Pampers, iverglas. I'm only 10 months old. And yet when you tried to use the fact that no one can prove a negative to condemn the American and civilized principle of presumption of innocence, I saw through it and took your arguments apart. I showed that no deceit was intended and no deceit was possible. All innocence is presumed, so when we assume that gun owners are "law abiding" for lack of contrary evidence we are not doing something devious or suspect--it's standard operating procedure in civilized countries.

Now my doing this at 10 months makes me a genius of unprecedented brilliance, obviously. But have you ever considered what it make you, old woman?

I did say: I do not tolerate insulting fools. I dish out exactly what the spew spewed by fools merit, and I take their insulting and abusive spew very well. I simply do not tolerate it.

There is one insulting fool you have tolerated far too well for a hundred years or more. If you didn't tolerate her so well, maybe she would admit when she was wrong, stop repeating demolished arguments, stop cursing incessantly, stop condescending up, stop abusing newcomers...

I tell you what, if you stop calling me by endearing terms and being so abusive to everyone, I will stop pointing and laughing. I plan to check myself on how I talk to other people anyway--at least the ones who aren't especially abusive themselves--no reason you can't be a "civilian" too. I look forward to your constructive criticism--hope springs eternal.

And iverglas:

I did say: I do not tolerate insulting fools. I dish out exactly what the spew spewed by fools merits, and I take their insulting and abusive spew very well. I simply do not tolerate it.

Spew... merits. Remove the intervening words and the correction is obvious. To me, at least.

[jody]

91. You're on a roll.

:hi:

[iverglas]

107. 'zat you, jody?

Dreaming of shitballs again?

A strange fixation, that ...

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

105. and it creates such fun for others

as we dance behind your back and mock you.

[iverglas]

106. oh dear

You are aware, I trust, that it is contrary to the rules of this place to announce that you have put / are putting another member "on ignore" when you have not done / do not do any such thing??

[RamboLiberal]

49. Outside within the Security Zone that the Secret Service

decides is essential to the security of the president they will disarm anyone carrying a gun. If you are outside that security zone and your state laws permits you to carry a weapon then you would be allowed.

[Abq_Sarah]

123. The secret service

Puts up a protective ring around any venue where the President is speaking. For the duration of the President's visit, it's considered federal property. The size of the ring is designed to protect the President from attack. If you're outside the area, you fall under state and local regulations. If you want to go inside, you'd better not be armed.

[Hugabear]

34. According to NRA logic, the president would be safer if EVERYONE was carrying a gun

Isn't that the pro-gun argument?

[PavePusher]

43. No. It isn't.

And you look rather foolish for claiming it.

Please cite where/when the NRA has EVER advocated arming EVERYONE. And don't try to move your goal-posts.



Edited for spelling.

[Hugabear]

45. Puh-lease...

Maybe I should have said "EVERY law abiding citizen" - which would still be bullshit.

You cannot deny that the NRA and other gun enthusiasts maintain that having a well-armed population creates a safer environment. Why are pro-gun types pushing to allow guns on college campuses and other places? Because they think that we would all be safer if more people were carrying guns!

And the whole notion of allowing "law abiding citizens" to be armed is bullshit, since EVERY citizen is "law abiding" until they commit their first crime!

[TPaine7]

84. "the whole notion of allowing 'law abiding citizens' to be armed is bullshit"

And the whole notion of allowing "law abiding citizens" to be armed is bullshit, since EVERY citizen is "law abiding" until they commit their first crime!

That is profound!

Let's apply that "logic" elsewhere:

1) YOU have yet to commit your first murder (I assume), but the idea of letting YOU run free is bullshit, since no one is a murderer until their first murder!
2) YOU have yet to commit your first hit-and-run (I assume), but the idea of letting YOU drive is bullshit, since no one is a hit-and-run driver until their first hit-and-run!
3) YOU have yet to use a computer to hack into sensitive military sites (I assume), but the idea of letting YOU use a computer is bullshit, since no one is a national security risk hacker until their first national security risk hack!
4) YOU have yet to commit your first felony child abuse (I assume), but the idea of letting YOU be alone with children is bullshit, since no one is a felony child abuser until their first felony child abuse!

I agree that some people should be presumed guilty--but only people who view freedom as a terrible and dangerous burden.

Why can't people who think like you realize how anti-American presumption of guilt is, indeed how anti-civilization? Start your own totalitarian regime, somewhere far, far away, where you can make presumption of guilt the standard. Another planet would be nice--or, even better, another universe.

Puh-lease...

[slackmaster]

55. No, that is not a pro-gun argument

That is a Straw Man frequently cited by gun ban enthusiasts.

[Hugabear]

71. Maybe you should watch this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=352249&mesg_id=352249

Pay attention to the very last portion of the interview - it pretty much rebuts your statement

[E-Mag]

73. Self Removed

[slackmaster]

76. That individual does not speak for me

And he didn't even say the president would be safer if EVERYONE was carrying a gun.

:hi:

Your Straw Man fails spectacularly.

[rd_kent]

36. Yes, AT the event.

If you are referring to the idiot yesterday on TV, no. He was not AT the event, he was on another street, on private property, committing no crime.

Do I agree with guy? NOT AT ALL! But he did nothing criminal.

[One_Life_To_Give]

47. Sorry National Security Events have special regulations

There is a security zone placed around these events. Individuals do not have the right to enter them with with firearms except as allowed by the Secret Service/Homeland Security.

[X_Digger]

48. And that's what hapenned yesterday..

.. at no point during the meeting was this guy within that perimeter.

[aikoaiko]

50. In general, yes, people should be allowed to carry in public as per the relevant laws

...even when the president is speaking.

However, I'm a big believer in the giving the SS wide latitude in intervening with someone they assess as a threat. If the SS says Presidential speaking engagements should be officially gun free except for LEO then so be it.

If you were thinking about the guy in NH, I don't think he actually attended the public meeting and stayed on private property the whole time. So for that situation, the question might be should people who legally possess guns be prevented from legally carrying them on private property when the Presidential motorcade rolls by?

[JonQ]

52. I think it does give that right

in public at least, on private property it's up to the owners.

Possession is not a de facto threat.

Although I wouldn't consider it a major infringement on our rights to forbid them even in public, within a certain distance from the president.

Don't send the people to jail who are, merely tell them to vacate and escort them away if needed.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fedupinhouston]

60. Ignorance is even more deadly...

and you're displaying an incredible amount of it.

[bossy22]

69. so are cars

teenagers forget that little fact too...and yes i know cars are not "designed to kill" but there capacity, if operated unsafely, to kill cannot be ignored

just because something is deadly doesnt mean it should automatically be banned.

and why do you say police as a whole....i can tell you that many police officers are no jedi masters when it comes to firearms (and there knowledge is just a little bit above basic....this is not to say that all police officers are like this, i know many officers who are quite proficient...but police are just like civilians...some are proficient, some are okay, and some just dont know there tail from their elbow)

[HALO141]

75. Amen n/t

[HALO141]

66. To be clear...

The Amendment doesn't "give" anyone a right to do anything. It guarantees a right that pre-existed the Constitution.

No, the SS does not have the "right" to disarm him though some may argue that they have the authority to do so.

Further, such laws specifying where one may or may not carry a firearm, are only relevant with respect to areas open to the public, generally speaking. (I'm only speaking in very broad terms. There are far too many variations in local statutes to address here.) Private property is under control of the owner or agents thereof and the owner has the right to establish whatever policies he so chooses with regard to what will or will not be allowed on his property but public property is, by definition, available to everyone.

As to the "threat," no, possession of a firearm is such an event is not a de facto threat. The risk is there regardless of whether or not it's visible. But there were, no doubt, some very tight sphincters among the detail that day.

[TheWraith]

94. No, it does not. Venues can specifically restrict firearm carriage.

Also it's allowed to restrict carriage in situations where special security arrangements are necessary. Political appearences, courtrooms, secured facilities, etcetera. I don't believe the Secret Service could legally take away the gun of someone who was trying to enter, but they would be entirely justified in refusing that person entrance.

[Tejas]

99. Hinckley didn't have an AK-47

Thank you for playing.

[iverglas]

108. wtf?

[raimius]

112. I am confused as well

What are you talking about?

[Howzit]

115. When is this post going to be bannished to the Dungeon?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8594958&mesg_id=8594958

[benEzra]

118. Straight from the U.S. Secret Service, via a CNN article today:

Straight from the U.S. Secret Service, via a CNN article today:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."

The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.

The media-manufactured controversy is NOT about people lawfully carrying weapons into Presidential venues; it is about people lawfully carrying weapons in the general vicinity of Presidential venues, but NOT in the zone designated by the Secret Service as the secure area.

I had the privilege of eating lunch with a former Secret Service agent some years ago, and those guys take their job SERIOUSLY (and they are extremely good at it). Someone lawfully carrying a firearm outside the secured zone is not a threat, and they control who is armed within the secured zone.

[Euromutt]

120. "Media-manufactured" is right

It must be slow news week for this story to get as much attention as it has. It strikes me as a fairly non-controversial observation that when it comes to being on guard against assassins, it's not the people who are openly bearing firearms for all to see that you need to be worried about. Oswald wasn't standing in plain sight on the sidewalk, he was inside a sixth-floor window, and kept the rifle out of sight until he was ready to fire. Booth murdered Lincoln with a single-shot Deringer, a weapon designed to be concealed. Sirhan and Hinckley used small-frame .22 revolvers, and while I can't prove it, it strikes me as highly implausible that they were carrying them openly. I could go on, but why flog a dead horse?