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.

Open carry vs CC
 

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.

As with everything in life, it's a question of timing. His was off.

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...)

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.

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!"

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.

Politics and AR-15s
 

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.

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=XqPSV...layer_embedded

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.

nevermind

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

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.