View Full Version : "Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest" - AP
Good on Phoenix police and Arizona in general. :)
PHOENIX — 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."
Representatives of the National Rifle Association did not return calls for comment.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hctDBUKMR4V-lGBrEQcYNO0ooBQAD9A4TG402
Wow! It’s common sense you shouldn’t have a weapon anywhere near the POTUS, but imagine the level of frustration it takes for citizens to do that. At best this president is a narcissistic clown, entertaining for 10 minutes at the circus, but sheer liability as our leader in a dangerous world, amidst economic crisis. This might be a hint Americans don’t want the Constitution trampled and Socialism forced down their throats. I can’t think of a more divisive leader, and I thought Hillary was polarizing.
As for the lack of reaction by the Phoenix PD, well Obama has already set clear precedence here, it would be “stupid” of the local police to interfere with or harass law abiding citizens, and we wouldn’t want that….
HowardCohodas
08-18-2009, 02:29
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
On the other hand one could argue that armed citizens bring a calming effect.
On the other hand one could argue that armed citizens bring a calming effect.
It all might depend upon one's perspective and one's political objectives, I suppose.:confused:
HowardCohodas
08-18-2009, 02:51
It all might depend upon one's perspective and one's political objectives, I suppose.:confused:
From Heinlein's writings it would seem it is more an observation of human nature than a political objective. In my case, your observation would be deserved. ;)
Fiercely Loyal
08-18-2009, 02:55
GOOD FOR THEM!!! I am personally glad to see that they did it. I believe it sends a clear message. Also I am very very happy that the LEO's didn't over react. People are being convinced to vote certain ways with the POTUS using grants and projects as influence. Maybe if this were to happen more often the POTUS would listen more to the voices who are crying out for him to stop on the road he is taking us down.
wiwarrior
08-18-2009, 03:35
I'm glad to see citizens using the God given Rights that we have. We must use them or risk losing them!
Defender968
08-18-2009, 05:54
GOOD FOR THEM!!! I am personally glad to see that they did it. I believe it sends a clear message.
Absolutely couldn't agree more, I just hope our politicians are watching and listening, my fear is that they'll write them off as just a few more right wing extremists instead of seeing them for what I believe they are, average citizens who are being pressed to the limit and who are extremely frustrated with the path the gov is taking us down.
Also I am very very happy that the LEO's didn't over react.
Again agreed, and good on the brave men and women of the Phoenix PD, glad to see some good press for LEO's doing the right thing protecting the rights of all involved.
Although I certainly understand the demontrators' intentions and the Constitutional (not 'God given') right to bear arms as they did - I have to question their reasoning in doing so in today's social and political climate.
And ironically, as far as using Heinlein's "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." quote from one of his earlier works of science fiction, a reading of Beyond This Horizon might give a different context than that to which it is often used. Does this mean that those who cite this text also agree that easily occurring dueling to defend one's honor (as described in the novel) should be a necessary and acceptable part of society? :confused:
JMO - YMMV. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I wonder what it feels like to have several sniper rifles trained on you?
Utah Bob
08-18-2009, 09:57
I possess two things.
A deep respect for the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.
Common sense.
I don't think I'd let the first override the second and show up at a political event with an AR.
Just me.
Team Sergeant
08-18-2009, 10:34
This is not the socialist state of Massachusetts or Kaliforina, yet.;)
For every weapon you "saw" there were probably 100 you didn't see.
TS
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.
armymom1228
08-18-2009, 10:46
Arizona is an open carry state. http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html
Team Sergeant
08-18-2009, 11:00
I possess two things.
A deep respect for the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.
Common sense.
I don't think I'd let the first override the second and show up at a political event with an AR.
Just me.
I think they were just making a few statements and well within their rights to do so.;)
TS
"Do Not Go Gentle Into that Good Night"
By Dylan Thomas
Praetorian
08-18-2009, 11:30
I dont really see a problem here.... The man with the gun was allowed to carry his firearm, but the Secret service kept him a safe distance away from the President.
I'm about as pro- 2nd amendment as one can get, but I don't think the outcome of elections should come down to a daily quick draw contest between the secret service and however many people want to carry guns within inches of the leader of the country.
I don't think the outcome of elections should come down to a daily quick draw contest between the secret service and however many people want to carry guns within inches of the leader of the country.
Large crowds close to the President also present a high degree of risk, especially during "Grip & Grin" events. Perhaps the Secret Service should keep everyone 200m back from the President's route of travel, you know, for his safety and all.
Heck, demonstrators could become violent at the drop of a hat, so how about we ignore that pesky 1st Amendment and prohibit protestors from assembling within a mile of where ever the President travels? He might suffer from stress related gastric reflux if he sees or hears opinions that oppose his.
While legal, in my opinion, it was not too smart.
The problem I have with open carry at a political event is some of the well organized union opposition could make the person a target.
Get the cameras rolling, have a crowd of 20 or so cluster around the armed individual, close in, cops not there yet, a little low pushing, the individual makes a grab for the gun and the crowd saves the day by beating him down and taking the gun - all shown on the 6:00 local news and national in the next half hour.
With CC - nobody knows.
Peregrino
08-18-2009, 13:20
As with everything in life, it's a question of timing. His was off.
ZonieDiver
08-18-2009, 13:30
While legal, in my opinion, it was not too smart.
I agree. "We" don't do our position a great deal of good by "flaunting" our rights in the face of a "well-armed" (with a sorts of legal remedies) enemy.
I don't know who the guy was (I think the local paper id'ed him as "Chris Jones") and will wait to see if anyone "claims" him. I wonder if a 'crazy' at one of these events is actually an "agent provocateur" trying to make "us" look bad? (tinfoil hat on...)
Fiercely Loyal
08-18-2009, 14:32
I possess two things.
A deep respect for the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.
Common sense.
I don't think I'd let the first override the second and show up at a political event with an AR.
Just me.
Hey that is exactly why I said good for them. Me I prefer not to blip the radar unless I get the crazy idea to have all the news stations make me out to be that guy. I don't interview well so you wont find me doing that anytime soon.
Not that it matters, but I must admit i was a bit surprised when what i thought i saw as the rifle toting man being of African decent. Had i onlly read about it, and not seen it this morning on HLN (only watch HLN in the mornings...for Robin Meade), I would have guessed a white dude.
Praetorian
08-18-2009, 19:21
Large crowds close to the President also present a high degree of risk, especially during "Grip & Grin" events. Perhaps the Secret Service should keep everyone 200m back from the President's route of travel, you know, for his safety and all.
If the secret service had their way, that's exactly what would happen... But the President gets the final say on how tight the protection gets, and NONE would ever go for that, because the political value of the rope line is invaluable to them and their advisors. So instead the Secret Service makes other provisions for those close up interactions INCLUDING the rope line itself, multiple agents right next to him ready to throw him into a waiting five ton armored car a few feet away, counter-snipers watching the entire scene, and concentric circles of increasing security that include the "No Weapon" zones established by other agents far in advance. Its a calculated risk, but one made less dangerous by the extraordinary work of the men and women of the Secret Service.
The alternative reminds me of something children do in the back seat of a car on a long trip. One child will get bored and start touching the other, who will begin screaming "Dad..... Hes touching me." The parent will turn and say "Stop touching her!" Every parent knows what comes next.... The "toucher" puts his finger millimeters away from the "touchees" face and begins to maniacally chant "I'm not touching you...I'm not touching you..." As if Dad cant intervene because the actual harm addressed earlier hasn't occurred.... But in this case, the "toucher" is a would-be assassin and what? Can glibly say "Im not shooting him... im not shooting him" and the parental Secret Service have to WAIT until he does before they can intervene? NO! They do what dad does: "KNOCK IT OFF OR YOU'RE GOING TO GET IT!"
incarcerated
08-18-2009, 20:50
The problem I have with open carry at a political event is some of the well organized union opposition could make the person a target.
Concur. It's fine until the Left's street artists provoke the guy into a put-up-job altercation. I expect them to go hunting for the next one of these with a set-up.
mojaveman
08-18-2009, 21:02
I don't think that I'd ever go to a political assembly carrying an AR-15. I'd be too afraid that some "screwball" might misinterpret my statement and then want to be a hero by violently trying to disarm me.
GratefulCitizen
08-18-2009, 21:49
Good on 'em.
These citizens are merely wielding the symbols and tools of their sovereign authority.
The critters who temporarily hold political office operate using power which is delegated down to them from the people.
It is good to remind them, from time to time, that they are servants who work for us.
If they don't like it, that is their problem. They are free to quit their offices.
The right to bear arms pre-exists their offices and is guaranteed (not granted) by our Constitution.
<edit>
Just came across this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqPSV0ZQL1Q&feature=player_embedded
Utah Bob
08-19-2009, 07:33
(only watch HLN in the mornings...for Robin Meade),.
HAH! I am not alone!:D
HAH! I am not alone!:D
You are certainly not! It all started on an early summer morn, sun was rising, dew on the grass....jk. I use to go to the gym, hop on the treadmill, and there she was on 6 different 50 inch screens. If accessible, HLN in the a.m. for me.
It "sounds" to me (based on the article) that the protesters told the LEOs and or the secret service what was going on ahead of time so they would be prepared so that a scene wouldn't ensue. The one time I saw an armed person try to get near a SS DPS protected event it didn't go well for the person that tried it.
Well that and the fact the moron 'resisted' and did some other not so smart things..But I digress. I'd be willing to bet though that the CAT folks were a millisecond from being ready to intervene should that be needed.:munchin
Not that it matters, but I must admit i was a bit surprised when what i thought i saw as the rifle toting man being of African decent. Had i onlly read about it, and not seen it this morning on HLN (only watch HLN in the mornings...for Robin Meade), I would have guessed a white dude.
He was
MSNBC Reported it by bringing race into the Story. Saying it was even more wrong to have Weapons because the President is African American "nobody carried Weapons when the Presidents were White" In their report they never showed the face of the Man carrying the Weapon. Talk about spinning a story to suit their agenda.
"nobody carried Weapons when the Presidents were White"
I hate to put a historical dampener on that bit of inflammatory falsehood - but - tell that to Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and GWB - who were all either shot at or shot.
And then there's that lengthy period in American history when many of the people in nearly any crowd - including any in which the POTUS appeared - were openly armed.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
HowardCohodas
08-21-2009, 06:36
I hate to put a historical dampener on that bit of inflammatory falsehood - but - tell that to Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and GWB - who were all either shot at or shot.
And then there's that lengthy period in American history when many of the people in nearly any crowd - including any in which the POTUS appeared - were openly armed.
If congenital or purposeful ignorance were a reporter disqualification, most would have to leave their jobs. OTOH that might be a good thing. ;)
CNN
http://icarizona.blogspot.com/2009/08/assault-rifle-publicity-stunt-outside.html
Seems it was a demonstration and statement of rights planned and calculated. There was an article in the AZ Rep that explained this as well.
The right or wrong of the method is debatable, such debate pretty much the point of the demonstration I'd guess. It reminds me of the use of the Navy to "show the flag" in ports and waters around the world. It presses the rights to do so freely and lawfully.
I hate to put a historical dampener on that bit of inflammatory falsehood - but - tell that to Jackson, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and GWB - who were all either shot at or shot.
And then there's that lengthy period in American history when many of the people in nearly any crowd - including any in which the POTUS appeared - were openly armed.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Rich, I knew you would find fault.....:D
I was just talking about how MSNBC doctored the video and openly discussed the incident in order to make it look like a bunch of White dudes were looking to shoot a President just because he was Black.
I was just talking about how MSNBC doctored the video and openly discussed the incident in order to make it look like a bunch of White dudes were looking to shoot a President just because he was Black.
I know that - my post was directed at the tendency of the MSM to be so short-sighted and at those whose view of History is so limited they'll buy into almost anything that is either shown on TV, talked about on radio, or posted on the WWW. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
6.8SPC_DUMP
08-24-2009, 18:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI
I thought this was a good example of blatant left-wing MSM deception by MSNBC.
They zoom in on the AR-15 the black gentleman brought - so to not show his race - and then had a black guest talk about the dangers of right-wing hate groups' racism. :rolleyes:
It's actually worse than I made it out to me: they showed a white guys face (with a black sling over his shoulder) right after the edited AR-15 shot, and the pretty faced journalistic powerhouse of a co-host said "you have white people showing up with guns".
Team Sergeant
08-24-2009, 19:51
CNN
http://icarizona.blogspot.com/2009/08/assault-rifle-publicity-stunt-outside.html
Seems it was a demonstration and statement of rights planned and calculated. There was an article in the AZ Rep that explained this as well.
The right or wrong of the method is debatable, such debate pretty much the point of the demonstration I'd guess. It reminds me of the use of the Navy to "show the flag" in ports and waters around the world. It presses the rights to do so freely and lawfully.
The AZ "republic" is a left wing "tool" and not suitable to use as a litter box liner. I know I live here.
The AZ "republic" is a left wing "tool"
It is that. But aside all the garbage in the article brought by the writer, the man that carried the rifle did explain the purpose of the demonstration. It was also explained the police were informed and coordinated with prior to the day of the "Town Hall".
Team Sergeant
08-25-2009, 09:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI
I thought this was a good example of blatant left-wing MSM deception by MSNBC.
They zoom in on the AR-15 the black gentleman brought - so to not show his race - and then had a black guest talk about the dangers of right-wing hate groups' racism. :rolleyes:
It's actually worse than I made it out to me: they showed a white guys face (with a black sling over his shoulder) right after the edited AR-15 shot, and the pretty faced journalistic powerhouse of a co-host said "you have white people showing up with guns".
Yup, now had that guy been white the left wing socialist democrats would have had his mug slated as the poster child for the far right wing "hate" groups.
I think the left-wing wet themselves when they saw this guy toting a gun open carry style.
We all know there's no black guys on the far right side......;)
IMO This guys "statement" was brilliant. The only thing that could have been better is if some rainbow wearing females were also sporting weapons.
I doubt the Teleprompter Reader of the United States will be returning anytime soon (to AZ).
Times are a changing.
armymom1228
08-25-2009, 11:30
I know that - my post was directed at the tendency of the MSM to be so short-sighted and at those whose view of History is so limited they'll buy into almost anything that is either shown on TV, talked about on radio, or posted on the WWW. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
You forgot to mention those who see the headlines in the supermarket tabloids and believe it to be gospel truth. I see that sort would believe anything, no matter if proven untrue, from the Media in general.