A thought or two about guns at Presidential events

[Bluzmann57]

I remember about four or five years ago then V.P. Cheney came to our city for some type of fund raising event and there were a bunch of us who were protesting him and his administration's policies. We gathered at a local park and marched to the east, near the private (really wealthy) neighborhood where he was appearing. There was zero chance that we would actually see him, but it was nice to make a statement and be seen on the local news. Anyway, as we were lining up, the local police department came along and confisticated...wait for it...little American flags on wooden sticks, mostly from elderly ladies. We've all seen them, kind of cheesy little things which pose no threat to anyone (the flags, not the ladies). The reason given by the PD was that they posed a "security threat". Now I wonder, if any of us had been carrying a loaded gun, would we have ever gotten out of Guantanamo? Likely not. So why are people doing it now? Obama is the President and should be treated with respect due the office. I am certainly not an anti gun person, but I believe that under no circumstances should guns be allowed at Presidential events, no matter the party and ideological differences. I mean if the little sticks pose a security threat to a man who we knew we'd never see, wouldn't a gun pose an even bigger threat to a man they will likely at least catch a glimpse of? Of course, but I suppose it proves that Obama not only is a more courageous man than cheney and co., but believes in freedom more than they did.
I expect that this will not get a lot of response given the death of Senator Kennedy and also due to the fact that very few of my posts get a lot of attention, but I just wanted to get this off my chest. Thank you.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. The obama administration is not the bush administration

It's saddening to hold up the bar buscho set as some sort of standard or example. Tell me, do you think it's OK for the obama admin. to torture people just because bush got away with it? No, of course not. Likewise, bush's SS violating the rights of people who were not breaking the law is NOT justification for obama's SS to do the same.

In short: If you walk around the next 8 yrs holding obama to bushes standards... how much progress do you think will get done?

[Apollo11]

2. How is protecting the public and the President the same as torturing people?

I agree with Bluzmann57. It's not just about protecting the President. It's also about protecting the public and preventing intimidation at public events.

[Bluzmann57]

3. What are you talking about?

Nowhere in my post was torture mentioned. And nowhere in my post did I suggest that the Obama administration was anything like the bush administration. Maybe I'll go back and reread my own post just to make sure, my memory isn't all that good sometimes. But I suspect that I'll still come up with the same conclusions.

[whistler162]

5. You might want to read the rest of the post....

I see to many people who appear to want President Obama to adhere to bush's public meeting security program or arrest them all if they appear to disagree with el Presidenta and let the courts sort them out afterward and the municipality pay the legal fees from the lawsuits.

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Nope, some of us just want to see a federal law prohibiting guns from Presidential events (except

for police/SS/military providing security).

[tabbycat31]

7. I'd extend that

make it events from any elected official

[Statistical]

8. Such a law already exists.

The SS prohibits weapons (and many other items) inside the security perimeter.
The people w/ guns were OUTSIDE the security perimeter.

The SS didn't make the perimeter larger because THEY (the SS) didn't feel it was necessary.

However lets say they did. Lets say hypothetically at the event in question the perimter was 200 ft because there was no line of sight beyond 200 ft. So the gun protesters were 201ft away = legal.

Now you think the perimeter should be larger? Ok 500ft. Now there is still a gun protester 501ft away = legal.

Other than hyperbole (guns near the President which never happened) I don't see the issue. Would you be "happy" if the SS had set the perimeter at 300ft and the guns were at 301ft? or 500ft/501ft? or 700ft/701ft?

[SunsetDreams]

4. K&R

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Bluzmann57, you got my K&R

[Statistical]

10. What the Police did was wrong.

Due to your distance you posed no danger to the VP. If open or concealed carry was legal in your state you wouldn't have presented a danger even with a firearm.

Just because that the Police did was wrong in 2004 doesn't mean it should continue now.

Rule of law.

What the protesters did may be stupid, but it wasn't illegal. We don't detain people for "non-crimes".

As far as "no guns at Presidential events" you can't bring a gun to a Presidential event. However the SS determines the limit of the event. If the Pres is in Dallas all of Dallas isn't "the presidential event". Nobody is allowed to bring guns to a Presidential event and nobody did.

Can you at least see the danger and ambiguous of a law making it illegal to bring firearms "near" a Presidential event.

What is "near"? Vague laws (like Patriot act) allow tyranny. When you write a law you need to be more concerned with how it could/will be misused rather than how it will be used.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. People were arrested for wearing t-shirts.

[Winterblues]

12. There are going to be many here defending the right to strut with a gun anywhere

at any time. At a political rally it seems a very wrong thing to do. It is nothing more than thuggery. An attempt to intimidate opposing views. I can understand a person wanting to carry a weapon in the countryside but I have zero understanding of a person wanting to carry one at a rally of any sort but especially a political rally where tensions are usually high anyway.