world

Gun-toters, including one with assault weapon, attend Obama protest

126 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

126 Comments
Login to comment

Absolutely disgusting! And yet when bush was president you were protesters were roped off way off from the event, and some were put in trucks for their t-shirts!

These morons are simply amazing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Epic morons. The Secret Service should have used them for target practice.

Gotta love America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is Paranoia an American pastime or do people really need to fear their government? This preoccupation with carrying semi-automatic weapons never ceases to amaze me. Indeed, from a pure security perspective, something needs to be done to disarm those persons in the vicinity of the President who wander around mumbling about "the right to bear arms". Indeed, what was the attitude towards such activities during the administration of GW?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

well, nothing happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

people really need to fear their government

0 ( +0 / -0 )

people really need to fear their government

Maybe people should be in fear of each other instead - seems logical? After all, its supposedly a government of the people, by the people, for the people?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It would be difficult allow some people the opportunity to exercise their rights to free speech in a public location at a given time, yet now allow other people the opportunity to exercise their (legally granted) rights to bear arms in the same location, at the same time. Obama was inside and the open carrying protesters were outside. The Secret Service obviously allowed/tolerated it. What exactly is the harm here that would be justify temporarily denying citizens previously legally granted rights?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry - yet not allow

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mark: maybe the SS basically understands that legal gun owners are not the ones to worry about

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What these tools also don't realize is that while they are displaying their weapons and bragging about rights, if the SLIGHTEST thing goes wrong, and trust me, more people are going to start doing as these people are, and something is going to happen (either police demanding they relinquish weapons or they are barred from protests, or much worse!), they are only destroying that which they proclaim as a right. Think about it. If one of these dimwits decides to unholster or pull up a weapon, boom. Then what do they think is going to happen to the 'right to bear arms' at such events? That too will go up in smoke. Already they're putting their own rights in jeopardy, as well as people's lives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Obama isn't scared of these types. He's walked through some of the toughest and most gang infested places in the US. If he ain't afraid of them, why should he be afraid of some over weight legal gun owners?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a sad country. Kind of sums-up the USA when people are permitted to walk around town with an AR-15 assault rifle. I mean, for what reason does someone need to walk around in public with an AR-15 assault rifle !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I mean, for what reason does someone need to walk around in public with an AR-15 assault rifle !" Because the other guy is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "Because the other guy is."

So get rid of both. Period. You let 'the other guy' do it and you become 'the other guy' to the other guy. As I said, people with that kind of thought processes are only endangering others, themselves, and their supposed 'rights'.

Not being 'scared' is a good quality, but lack of fear doesn't stop a bullet. The guns just shouldn't be allowed, let alone allowed near the President.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So get rid of both" Ok, but how about in this order, first get rid of those who get guns illegally, get rid of those drug gangs, KKK orgs, and impose some really strict laws for all crimes, then do you think anyone would really want to get a gun?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So get rid of both" Ok, but how about in this order, first get rid of those who get guns illegally, get rid of those drug gangs, KKK orgs, and impose some really strict laws for all crimes, then do you think anyone would really want to get a gun?

Sounds like a plan. You could also make a good start by shooting on site anyone walking around town with an AR-15, especially if the Pres was in the vicinity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let them strut around with their big phallic automatic firearms. It saves having to equip each one with an 'I am a Moran' placard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The prevalence of guns is probably the thing I like least about my home country. The NRA there is like the right-wingers are here -- they have way too much political clout compared to their actual numbers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The solution is far simpler than you think. First of all ban the ownership of guns and rifles. Second, give the police and the army a shoot-to-kill policy whenever they come across a gang member, housebreaker or robber who is armed. Then the NRA will no longer have an argument about their right to bear arms and the public taxpayers costs of putting people into jail would drop dramatically. Unfortunately this solution would now be impossible to enforce as most of America owns guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The solution is far simpler than you think. First of all ban the ownership of guns and rifles. Second, give the police and the army a shoot-to-kill policy whenever they come across a gang member, housebreaker or robber who is arme" Ok, I agree.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NL: Which would you be more scare, since its real, at a demo like this, or in a gang infested area? I don't have stats on this, but I really doubt half of those fat old white guys, that is what they are, can shoot accurately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

for what reason does someone need to walk around in public with an AR-15 assault rifle

because they can! it's called free country. if you don't like it, North Korea should fit your needs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

fat old white guys, that is what they are

Skip - The man carrying the assault rifle appears to be neither fat, nor old, nor white.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dang Mark!

Some progressive heads are going to explode after that link. I sure hope he isn't a muslim to boot!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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.

You have the freedom to carry a gun, so what are you moaning about?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

he was carrying the assault weapon because he could

He could take a running jump and land head-first in a pile of doggie-doo-doo too, it don't mean it's a good idea or that it puts him in a good light.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They were just carrying thier guns because they thought the Dawn of the Dead zombies were gonna starts doing their zombie thing and a bullet to the brain is the easiest way to take em out.

Upstanding citizens if you ask me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

because they can! it's called free country. if you don't like it, North Korea should fit your needs.

It's funny, people who support this action then label other countries to deflect attention away and as if we are all then going to say, 'oh yeah, I would much rather live in a country where people stroll around with assault rifles than say, live in North Korea'. What makes you think you are so perfect to continually put other cultures down ? As far as I am concerned, the US is just as facked-up as Iraq or North Korea. And by the way nisegaijin, I am pretty sure that you cannot walk around in North Korea with an assault rifle and be within close proximity to the leader of that country. The North Koreans will be laughing at the news this evening when they see such a blatant lapse in security in Arizona for the Americans 'right to bear arms'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip - The man carrying the assault rifle appears to be neither fat, nor old, nor white." Mark: Sorry to offend all my fellow JT'ers who of Anglo extraction. Really and I was only poking fun. I am sure you guys can shoot well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Disgusting!The haters and the gun-toters should be reported to the government.There must be a website to report them to.Seriously,this combination of guns and paranoia and palin soundbites it's just a hate crime waiting to happen.

How can ANYONE listen to Obama's fantastic speeches and harbour violent thoughts?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You should be thankful for legal gun-owners coming out asserting their rights and "protecting" the President. Way to many protesters were being attacked and injured by groups like the "purple shirts."

-I feel much safer now and Obama should also. People need to quit the hate, fear-mongering and sabre-rattling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You should be thankful for legal gun-owners coming out asserting their rights and "protecting" the President. Way to many protesters were being attacked and injured by groups like the "purple shirts."

-I feel much safer now and Obama should also. People need to quit the hate, fear-mongering and sabre-rattling.

Someone PLEASE tell me that this is a joke...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Way to many protesters were being attacked and injured by groups like the "purple shirts."

Don't you have a regular police force to deal with that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“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.”

Of course it creates a "chilling effect". Most Americans are not used to seeing people brazenly carrying guns around in public. I know I'm not, and I'm glad for it.

Think about it. If one of these dimwits decides to unholster or pull up a weapon, boom.

Excellent point, smithinjapan. I can imagine that a scenario like that could happen. As more and more people feel comfortable with their "right" to carry a gun around, they will start to feel to relaxed with it. Imagine if just one of them unholsters it accidentally and another gun-toting citizen sees it and misinterprets it as a hostile act. He or she then unholsters their weapon, ... Of course, they will all claim that they have the right to use their guns because they had to "protect" themselves from the other citizen with a gun. Fear and paranoia begets more fear and paranoia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Arizona's new state motto is: Land Of The Jackass

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I totally agree with the socialists on this: Some of these protesters could be wearing shoes -or heaven forbid sandals- and we all know what happened to the last President that faced the fearsome shoe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

as long as i'm a safe distance away, like in another country, i have no problem with these goobers getting into a gunfight...the video would set you-tube records in less than 3 minutes

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The North Koreans will be laughing at the news this evening when they see such a blatant lapse in security in Arizona for the Americans 'right to bear arms'.

Only if their 'government' decides that it is what they want the people to see. Some in the US government may not like people from Arizona doing what is legal in that state, but they aren't stopping the people from knowing about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't believe this. Make a law that firearms are not to be carried to protests.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What an utter embarrassment this guy is. Someone should welcome him to the 21st century.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The haters and the gun-toters should be reported to the government.

Report what? The government already granted them open-carry permits.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That this would happen in Arizona should come as no surprise. Yes, Arizona, IS, in fact, last in the nation in education.

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cripes, that's all we need - posters coming on here dissing the good people of the great state of Arizona.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only if their 'government' decides that it is what they want the people to see. Some in the US government may not like people from Arizona doing what is legal in that state, but they aren't stopping the people from knowing about it.

knowitall, nobody else here brought up North Korea as a comparison lifestyle. Your allies defending a law that allows the general public to stroll around with an assault rifle brought up North Korea. I am merely reminding you, and anyone else who believes in a society that is permitted to walk around town with an AR-15, that the North Koreans are not stupid enough to allow any Tom Dick or Harry to get within target-practice distance of their country's leader. Unlike in Arizona I'm afraid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire ( blue state ) have little impact on security plans for the president."

Ed ain't lyin'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks to Hollywood and the NRA, form has finally followed art, and US society has succeeded in transforming itself into the plot of a Dirty Harry film.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Grossly irresponsibe. The right to bear arms carries great responsibility; this is a violation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good on the Arizona protestors. They are doing what they feel they must do to display how strongly they feel about their guaranteed constitutional rights.

Think about it. If one of these dimwits decides to unholster or pull up a weapon, boom.

But they didn't, why? Because the vast majority of legal gun owners are responcible with their firearms.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Triumvere,

You and legendary comic writer Stan Lee hit the nail on the head:

"With great power comes great responsibility." Anyone dumb enough to think bringing an assault rifle (or ANY firearm for that matter) to a protest is a good idea is not practicing responsibility, let alone great amounts.

But...now that there's a new sheriff in town, hate speech and intimidation are considered "rights." The sense of entitlement of the right is becoming proportional to the nonsense they spew.

From a security standpoint, this is unacceptable because of the potential for danger. From a political standpoint however, it's pure gold for the Democrats.

These people are not convincing any moderates. They aren't changing minds. They are announcing to the world, "I have the right to be stupid and I'm here with my gun to exercise it." Well...you go girl.

And when they shriek stuff like "death panels," "Obama is a communist," and my personal favorite, "keep your government hands off my medicare," they are announcing, we don't know or care about health care. We're here to show off our rabid hatred for Pres. Obama.

Sane Americans aren't going to associate themselves with this nonsense. Sane people want to make sure their children aren't harmed by these nut jobs. And they'll remember this when they close that voting booth curtain. So again, you go girls. Enjoy your captivity once the Secret Service gets their hands on you and remember, it's MY tax dollars that will go to feed your dumb ass while you sit in jail.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good on the Arizona protestors. They are doing what they feel they must do to display how strongly they feel about their guaranteed constitutional rights.

A lot of people here have missed the one fact which makes these demonstrators very suspect and a potential threat. The law is already in place in Arizona for those supporters of the NRA who wish to walk around with an assault rifle over their shoulder. It is legal to do so in Arizona. So please explain to me why these demonstrators decided to get close to President Obama and display their weapons in a crowded area ? Explain that one away. To me it makes each of those demonstrators threatening and aggressive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "Ok, but how about in this order, first get rid of those who get guns illegally, get rid of those drug gangs, KKK orgs, and impose some really strict laws for all crimes, then do you think anyone would really want to get a gun?"

Yes, yes, skip... well know that you are opposed to doing anything until all crime is stopped, but let's talk realistically here, for in this situation we have a VERY dangerous precedent being set by gun nuts who claim to be responsible, and if ONE person who is not responsible decides to do something, your rights are going to go out the window.

And knowing your hatred for Muslims, skip, just imagine with the paranoia that is in the US today if an Muslim American shows up dressed in traditional Muslim garb sporting an assault rifle around a presidential event and says she or he is just exercising their rights as an American. You can't do a thing about it, can you? And you have all these other people with guns exercising their rights, holding their guns, looking at this Muslim -- in other words, the paranoia is going to go through the roof. I throw this out merely as an example of how a simple stereotype could set off the other 'responsible' people in the crowd, and how having guns could turn into a massacre.

Bottom line is that from a security standpoint this is completely wrong. You can argue that we should start with pickpockets or the KKK all you want, but your argument that there's no point in fighting crime until crime ceases to exist is pretty silly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm pretty surprised they could openly carry fire arms at a protest. If no laws were committed then it's not really news. It's not as if these guys threatened the President because if they had they would have been arrested.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still find it funny, though, that a lot of Right-wingers (far away from the people in question, of course) defend this guy and his 'rights' when they were so scared of Cindy Sheehan they had her hauled off to prison how many times? Man those T-shirts are DANGEROUS!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

usaexpat: "It's not as if these guys threatened the President because if they had they would have been arrested."

But that's what this is about, to an extent. I mean, do these people walk around in public with their assault rifles and guns hanging out? No, and why not? People would feel threatened, and for good reason. So why is it suddenly not a threat that to do it around a presidential event?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Exercising rights just because you can seems a bit dumb. Why not go hammer your head to a tree? You have that right, better use it before someone takes it away. I think these people are just gun-nuts, rights have nothing to do with their logic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The solution is far simpler than you think. First of all ban the >ownership of guns and rifles

And how many gang members, housebreakers, robbers do you think purchase firearms through normal legal channels that would be subject to this "ban"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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.

So why are these men being called Gun Toters"? If it was a Gay group would the headline have read Homos attend protest? Both the article and the many posts on this thread expose the extent to which many people are simply "afraid" of guns in general, rather than the person weilding it.

What these tools also don't realize is that while they are displaying >their weapons and bragging about rights, if the SLIGHTEST thing goes >wrong,

What slightest thing? Are the guns going to start firing by themselves? These guys are carrying firearms in full view. I doubt they could do "anything" without being put down imediately.

Let them strut around with their big phallic automatic firearms. It >saves having to equip each one with an 'I am a Moran' placard.

You got something against the Irish?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

well, again, nothing happened, no violence. So all those fears of responsible and legalized gun owners seems to have been a bit over hyped.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smitty: "And knowing your hatred for Muslims, skip, just imagine with the paranoia that is in the US today if an Muslim American shows up dressed in traditional Muslim garb sporting an assault rifle around a presidential event and says she or he is just exercising their rights as an American."

good point, but why do you blanket me? I was in the army, I was in the ME with dozen of Muslims walking around with guns, I've been to other countries where that was the case too. Now, you do have a point. Hey, how do you know none of them there were not Muslim? I was wrong about them all being white....

This is the difference I think needs to be shown. Go to a block party with a bunch of gang members, and many of them are of my extraction, who are carrying guns and the police aren't going to do a damn thing. Almost everytime, something explodes in to mayham. Really. Try it if you don't believe me. Next, go around these guys here and you tell me which ones you would fee more comfortable. Its ok if your wrong. I once went to a biker rally. Scared to death before hand but glad I went as I learned they are not all that bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I mean, do these people walk around in public with their assault rifles and guns hanging out? No, and why not?

Smith, having spent some time in Arizona, I can assure you that some people do in fact open carry handguns. I never saw anyone with an assault rifle on their back, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm from Arizona. I worked with a guy who had a conceal carry permit, and never left home without his gun. Have to admit, first time I saw it, it kind of freaked me out. Though he had a very good explanation for why he had the permit, and carried the gun.

I am a firm believer in the constitutional right to bear arms. Having said that, I have to admit, I think this is definitely the wrong way to go. I really believe the police or secret service should have asked them to leave. They did nothing illegal, or wrong, but it definitely sends the wrong message. After this, and after it gets reported around the world, will there be some copycats? And what if one of those copycats isn't as friendly towards Obama as the guy carrying the AR-15 was. What if he actually means harm. And carrying a gun to a political event, where emotions occasionally run high, and around someone like Obama who is very divisive...

As much as I am for the 2nd Amendment. Allowing firearms anywhere near a political event, is a bad idea, and sets a dangerous precedent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is NOT going to help the hilarious stereotype I hear in Japan that all Americans have guns all the time like we are living in the Old West. In fact, in my 25 years in the US, I've NEVER seen a real gun in person aside from behind the counter of a sports store. And I live in "Sportsman's Paradise"!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ya people in arizona carry their guns out in the open all the time.

Lets look at the facts here, not a single person who has carried a gun to these events has been arrested nor has a single person at these events even pointed a gun at another person, the reason why I know that is because its illegal to do that unless you are doing it in self defense which would mean an assault is already in progress, nor has a single person carrying a gun threatend to use their guns, their guns are always in the holster and or slinged over their back.

smith to be fair here I think your the one overestimating the paranoia in the US, to be fair I think with all your talk about how americans are over fearful and paranoid you sure sound fearful and paranoid yourself. You can consider it a threat but how credible of a threat is it and if it is a threat how large of a threat? Considering how well behaved they have been at these events they sure are acting calmly which would lead me to believe the threat isn't really that high.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I currently live in Arizona and I have for the past 13 years. Arizona (and especially the Phoenix metro area) is very much a Republican stronghold and has been a very easy state for the National Rifle Association to extend their agenda.

Despite what some people are saying on here, people don't carry their guns in the open "all of the time". Even though I have seen people carrying unconcealed weapons, it is very rare. Private businesses have the right to not allow weapons in their location (you do see a lot of "no weapons" signs out here).

As far as gun control goes, I sit on the fence. I can understand the original reasons for the second amendment (it was written to say that you can protect yourself against an invasion by a foreign government). The translation has been extended to state that you can privately own assault weapons and openly weapons at gun shows.

Just a couple months before Obama's visit here (which I was luckily able to avoid as I was in SF Japantown for something much more exciting), Phoenix hosted the national NRA convention.

A recent story about two northern California toll-takers being shot in cold blood has me thinking more about the accessibility of weapons in our nation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

giggles but as stated they were not breaking the law. Really it is the gun bearers who can not be openly spotted that are the problem. It is not the weapons but the people who bear them. Anyhow I fully support the peoples right to keep and arm bears!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No laws were broken and thus this is a non-issue - unless you hate freedom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While I do support the right to bear arms, what these folks were doing is way out in left field. Carrying weapons with no clear purpose in a public area... That is a threatening situation for everyone else around them even others with legal permits to carry weapons as well as the police/military/government forces. They were so hell bent on making their point that they ignored and didn't consider in the slightest the safety of those around them. Dumb@$$es

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love the idiots on here that say they were not threatening the president. The intended to act in a threatening manner. They did not bring the guns to defend themselves. These conservatives are so embarrassing to the United States.

Tow missiles are arms; with the idiot conservatives on the court, they have no defense to say every citizen is allowed to carry a tow missile, that would not also apply to an assault rifle. NONE WHATSOEVER!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Uh, duh, nothing happened right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[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.] -- I really don't think it was to threaten anyone but only to prove a point. The point that you can have the right to bear arms and not be a troublemaker. But the anti-gun crowd has turned it into a disaster already with their own paranoia. If they'd only read what the subjects of this discussion have said and not try to put other meaning into their mouths.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am unsure about what guns have to do with healthcare -but the ploy seems to be working and there have been far less arrests and injuries. Maybe carrying a gun is the best form of health insurance one can have.

I would like to have a CZ52 (7.62x25) for my concealed carry (cc) and my shouldered weapon will be a Mosin-Nagant 91-30 (7.62x54r) preferably from the Tula arsenal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I love the idiots on here that say they were not threatening the president. The intended to act in a threatening manner. They did not bring the guns to defend themselves. These conservatives are so embarrassing to the United States.

Has been reported, that at least one of those carrying a gun was an Obama supporter. Making him a Lib, not conservative. Still embarrassed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I spent about 8 years in Arizona, and I can remember one time when I saw someone openly displaying a gun. It was in a pawn shop and the guy behind the counter had a gun in his holster. I remember it because I was a bit shocked to see it. When I saw it I guessed it was legal to do that but since I'd never seen it before I'd assumed it wasn't legal before that.

So no, people in Arizona aren't "carrying guns around all the time," but still, bringing an automatic rifle to a political meeting/protest is just a recipe for disaster at some point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this is a non-issue - unless you hate freedom

How 'bout the freedom of not having to worry about some big tough guy with a big gun and little willy suddenly feeling the need to 'defend' himself against some perceived 'threat' eg another big tough guy with similar accoutrements, body parts and lack of brain cells?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah cleo that happens all the time in the States. Have you ever been there and seen those things happen or do you just watch American TV shows and guess that is what the USA is really all about. You guys watch too much Jack Bauer, CSI and things like that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The right to bear arms is less of a problem than the fact that American males are weaned on violence. In their culture, it's not enough to see the bad guy brought down -- they want to see him blown to fragments in colorful explosions or get perforated by a hailstorm of lead. Nothing less will suffice. So ownership of a Glock or an Uzi is less for personal protection than enable these pathetic characters to revel in homicidal fantasies, like their film heroes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Has been reported, that at least one of those carrying a gun was an Obama supporter. Making him a Lib, not conservative. Still embarrassed?

Absolutely. Now provide sources for your statement as you have made very many unfounded statements in the past. "Representatives of the National Rifle Association did not return calls for comment." Neither I suspect will Molenir provide proof of what he said. It does not matter I stand my my original statement either way; Obama supporter or not. By the way many Obama supporters were not "Libs," or liberals if you want to escape the attempted slur. But feel free to "slur away."

this is a non-issue - unless you hate freedom.

That would be totally illogical thinking for anyone to believe that. There are so many other possibilities. RR must present a false dilemma to condemn those that disagree with him to "hating freedom." That line of thinking was voted out - remember. It is simply not a choice between one or the other. There are many possibilities. It can both be an issue and also I can love freedom. How childish to think otherwise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I never said there was anything wrong with being a Lib, however you Libs must get over your fears. These "gun toters" are only trying to help you get over your fears. Let these people help you so you can get on with your cycle of life and find true enlightenment. Being afraid (fear) is like putting a brickwall in front of your life.

-Damn I sound like one of the entitled.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You guys watch too much Jack Bauer, CSI and things like that.

Do I, indeed. I watched one episode of 24 long ago, decided it was rubbish; I've never watched CSI.

News TV shows are a different matter - are you saying that those are fiction, too?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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.

Yet another non-story, fallen off of the front pages.

Nothing happened.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unbelievable

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If these "folks" showed their harmless little tadgers everyone would panic and run away.

Show-gun-nai!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Saying nothing happened is equivalent to saying we should only be guided by the consequences of any given action. It would require us to never look forward to preventing confrontation, accidents or intentional harm that began with legally viable situations. It ignores foresight. Why I have to waste all of these words when simple words would suffice to get the point across much easier, I cannot understand. So I will reiterate.

Duh, nothing happened!

Why is that the most highly intelligent people do not find it necessarily to carry guns? I am not talking about the rich, who have security. I am speaking of the truly learned people of the world. I know what I am saying is pathetically useless as far as persuasion goes because the most ignorant folks are able to reason that erudition often means lacking common sense. They would have us believe that those truly intelligent people just don't have the common sense to carry a gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is that the most highly intelligent people do not find it necessarily to carry guns?

"Necessarily?" Because they think they are smarter than everyone else, they're elitists.

On the other hand, WISE Americans exercise their second amendment rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo,

How 'bout the freedom of not having to worry about some big tough guy

That's why you have the freedom to buy a bigger gun, or several guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you have the freedom to buy a bigger gun, or several guns

If you have to buy guns to protect yourself from being blown away, that isn't freedom.

And it still leaves the problem of how to secure the freedom of not having to worry about some big tough guy with a big gun and little willy suddenly feeling the need to 'defend' himself against some perceived 'threat' eg me with a big gun. (The very image is ludicrous, but then so is this whole idea of people in the supposedly most advanced country in the world needing to pack heat to 'protect' themselves from their fellow countrymen and/or an invading army.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Absolutely. Now provide sources for your statement as you have made very many unfounded statements in the past.

Meh, I don't know, I watched it on CNN. Day of the Presidents visit to Phoenix, was watching CNN and they showed a guy wearing a gun, were talking about him and the others who brought weapons to the protest. Showed him with a Obama sign. I don't know if you consider that a reliable source. Was just something I saw on TV. Haven't seen it reported anywhere though, so who knows. Guy wearing a gun, holding sign, seen on TV. Thats my source.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you have to buy guns to protect yourself from being blown away, that isn't freedom.

No, you're right. Its self defense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People wear these guns for "the look" and because they can and it's a lifestyle choice. -You people obviously don't understand "gun toters" at all. If I want to look like Clint Eastwood (with snarl on my face), spit and tote a few guns along you can still do that in America.

Gun toters= lifestyle choice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its self defense

As in the best defence is offence? More sensible, to my mind, to go and live somewhere where people are more cultured and less gung-ho.

People wear these guns for "the look" and because they can and it's a lifestyle choice. -You people obviously don't understand "gun toters" at all.

They think it's a good 'look', right? Enhances their appearance, and all that? So it's no different from the ganguro gals, the bovver-booted skinheads, the safety-pin-pierced, spiky-haired punks, the leather-jacketed, helmeted bikers travelling up on the train... yup. Got that. Perfect understanding. They're empty-headed twerps and followers of 'fashion', right?

Glad we got that sorted out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When New-Age came in during the late 70's I had my doubts also -but that's no reason to be a hypocrit. Without New-Age you would never have had the 80's Rock revolt.

These "gun toters" live a different lifestyle by choice. And in America you have choice -in fact we are defined by choice. The gun toter health insurance is almost the direct opposite of ObamaCare and this gives a new perspective on a happy medium.

It's sorta like asking a surfer what health plan he has? -I'm on the surfing health plan. That is choice and good enough for me. If you don't understand it or are against it -it generally says more about you than about them. Socialists would say they aren't going by the book (the script), but whose book are we talking about anyway.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Badsey: "These "gun toters" live a different lifestyle by choice."

Insecurity, the need to fit in, paranoia, fear, fashion statement. Got it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, what's this?

WaPo: White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events

Axelrod must have taken a quick poll.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you have to buy guns to protect yourself from being blown away, that >isn't freedom.

I think you're wrong there cleo, it's freedom. Perhaps far more freedom than most people want but it's freedom nevertheless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah, the gun control debate. Where the gun supporters don't have a clue and those who are fighting them are just as clueless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Where the gun supporters don't have a clue and those who are fighting >them are just as clueless.

I disagree. A great many gun supporters do have a clue, that what they are up against is an emotionally charged fear of "guns" in general. A fear that overpowers the ability to stop and think about issues like legal licensed guns versus illegally undocumented guns, whether a gun is loaded or not, culminating in a hallucinogenic view that anyone with a gun can suddenly snap and start firing in all directions without notice. Evidence of this fear is abundantly displayed in many of the comments on this thread. If one considers the abundance of illegal guns in the hands of criminals and the mentally unsound to be a problem in the US as I do, I think the first step ought to be to remove this often irrational and emotional reaction and utterly confused and misunderstood "facts" surrounding the posession of guns by civilians.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo: More sensible, to my mind, to go and live somewhere where people are more cultured and less gung-ho.

Cleo, articles like this are written with people like you in mind:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/

"Too many Brits seriously think that America is violent. It isn't. Most America lives are free of violence and the threat of it in a way no life in Swindon can be."

You're a perfect example of the uncultured American that you so often love to talk about. My guess it that Webb's article, from a man who spent a lot of time in the US, will do little to change your mind. That's because you think you know something about a place you've never spent time in. You need to suck it up, look at yourself in the mirror, and finally admit to yourself that you know nothing about the United States except for the typical uneducated European stereotypes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Britain is a violent place and guns are banned and have been for years.

Go figure.

That said, how much of an idiot do you have to be to go to a protest with an assault rifle?

I'm absolutely stumped this isn't ilegal - and more so since the president was actually there giving a speech....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you have to buy guns to protect yourself from being blown away, that >isn't freedom.

And communities that have police forces in europe are not as safe as they claim, because if they were what is the point of even having a police force to begin with? See the problem with your argument cleo?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving,

Europe is as equaly diverse as the US so you can't realy generalize. Especially not on gun laws - I own a handgun and 12 gague with relatively little paperwork in France. It's easier to get a handgun license than it is to register an American car here. Yet in Britain even BB guns are frowned upon.

Heh, that still doesn't mean I can attend a protest with any kind of arm. More Darwin awards need distributing here without moderation.....absolutely un-believable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hope Obama is safe from these nutters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That said, how much of an idiot do you have to be to go to a protest with an assault rifle?

There are people who do things because they can. Because they're legal. To shock others. Bringing a gun legally to this definitely accomplished this goal. I really think the police should have asked them to leave, not because it was illegal, but because it sets a dangerous precedent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From Americans who tell us that it's a good thing for anyone who isn't >actually mentally certified (yet) or a convicted felon (yet) to be able >to buy all the firepower he can afford.

I agree that Firearms are owned by many lawyers, judges, law enforcement officers, business executives, for the purpose of self protection, by lots of very "normal" and respectable people in society. But Firearms are also owned by hunters and target/trap shooters. You may recall that shooting is always found in every olympic game. The vast majority of legal gun owners own them for a purpose and don't have a need to acquire more than that which meets their needs. That the NRA and the US gun lobby fight attempts to limit the number of guns that a qualified individual can legally purchase is a direct reaction to the emotionally fed desire to eliminate individual gun ownership in entirety which you appear to so perfectly represent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You may recall that shooting is always found in every olympic game.

And that's a reason to let any nutter who wants wander around town carrying an assault rifle over his shoulder?? Do shot putters wander around hefting metal balls from hand to hand? Do weight lifters drag 50 kilo barbels behind them when they go shopping? Does Michael Phelps wander the streets in his Speedos? Why can't the shooters leave their equipment in the practice grounds, like other sportsmen do?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Outside one meeting hosted by Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, authorities detained a man with a sign reading, "Death To Obama, Death To Michelle And Her Two Stupid Kids."

This is the perfect example of the emptyheaded angry losers who listen to hate radio everyday to get their emotional fix.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And that's a reason to let any nutter who wants wander around town >carrying an assault rifle over his shoulder??

Again. on what are you basing the mental condition of "nutter"? Did he person make some threat or show behavior to suggest memtal incompetence? That the person posses an "assualt rifle", which is obviously not banned or illegal? Are you aware that an "assault rifle" as available to civilians in the U.S. is not different in functionality as any large bore semi-auto hunting rifle? Do you not see how prejudiced you are on he subject?

Why can't the shooters leave their equipment in the practice grounds, >like other sportsmen do?

They do. In fact they never carry them in the open as they are usually high precision costly pieces of equipment are carried only from homer to practice range and back. Just like all the other sports participants you mentioned. The crowd who deliberately carried firearms in the article obviously didn't do so to compete in any sporting event. It would be an absurd generalization to assume that these poeople represent most firearm owners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

on what are you basing the mental condition of "nutter"?

Who but a nutter would think it was a good idea to strut around in a public place packed with protesters, carrying a large and conspicuous firearm? Arizona gun law does not require a person to have a permit or license to purchase a shotgun, rifle or handgun - which means that literally any nutter who has so far evaded official recognition and has the money can buy himself a firearm.

The crowd who deliberately carried firearms in the article obviously didn't do so to compete in any sporting event

Then why bring up the topic of shooting in the Olympics?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium:This is the perfect example of the emptyheaded angry losers who listen to hate radio everyday to get their emotional fix.

Bang on! Your posts get better and more eloquent with each one my fine friend.My feeling is that you could be the next Seymour Hursch.

Well, anyways, it's too funny the way the few remaining bush supporters here try and defend people bringing guns to town hall meetings.Of course wingers try and talk about when some Black panther members showed up at a political rally in Texas back in 2000 with AK-47's but that is different.bush's free speech zones and his rheteric CAUSED them to resort to those measures, which were actually being done in self defence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who but a nutter would think it was a good idea to strut around in a >public place packed with protesters, carrying a large and conspicuous >firearm?

Well let's stop to consider that no one was injured, harmed or threatened, and that the police as well as the Secret Service were aware of these people. As the article states, they broke no laws at all. My past experience in dealing with the mentally ill, and I do mean psychotic as well as various behavioral disorders, do not permit me to label a person who has posed no threat to themselvdes or others as a "nutter". I suggest that in your rabbit-like fear of "guns" as a concept, to you "anyone" with a gun is not mentally sound. This I am afraid is not reality regardless of how much you may be against individual gun ownership and merely reflects your personal fears and prejudices.

Arizona gun law does not require a person to have a permit or license to >purchase a shotgun, rifle or handgun - which means that literally any >nutter who has so far evaded official recognition and has the money can >buy himself a firearm.

Arizona firearms purchases still require the purchaser to clear the Arizona Firearms Clearance Center database as well as a federal NICS National Instant Criminal Background Check System) check which is conducted by the FBI. To be scared that a person who has no criminal record or record of mental illness whatsoever can buy a gun is tantamount to being scared of people who have never run a person over before and are buying cars.

Usually the check itself will take less than a minute and the resultant answer is either a proceed, a delay or a deny. A delay gives the FBI 3 days to clear it up and before which the firearm cannot be sold. After 3 days the sale can take place automatically. A deny means the sale cannot go through and the purchaser can contact the Arizona Firearms Clearance Center to clear up the matter.

The crowd who deliberately carried firearms in the article obviously didn't do so to compete in any sporting event

Then why bring up the topic of shooting in the Olympics?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then why bring up the topic of shooting in the Olympics?

To show you that there are legitimate uses that call for the ownership and posession of guns. That not everyone who has a "gun" is, as you call them, a "nutter".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zurc This is the perfect example of the emptyheaded angry losers who listen to hate radio everyday to get their emotional fix.

Anytime you start talking about hate, I always laugh, as you know more about the subject then just about anyone. If someone is conservative, you have them, if a medium has a conservative bent, or even if they try to be fair, you hate them.

This guy though is a nutjob. I don't care what a Presidents political philosophy is, whether conservative, or socialist like Obama, the President is the President. No one ought to be talking about killing him or his family. Whether it was Bush, or Obama, political differences are just that, political differences, and thats where it ought to stop.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns are weapons and to carry them at a political demonstration, regardless of whether legal, is intimidation and can only be interpreted as such. Would you take a gun to McDonald's to exercise your right? Comparing guns to cars is sophistry. Guns are weapons, cars are not. If you hurt someone with a car, it is most likely an accident. Comparing background checks on gun buyers to checks on car buyers is also sophistry. Guns are not only used with intent to harm by nutters. They can be used with intent to harm in a calculated way or under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns are weapons and to carry them at a political demonstration, >regardless of whether legal, is intimidation and can only be interpreted >as such. Would you take a gun to McDonald's to exercise your right?

The guns were taken to a poltical demonstration, a location where the President was giving a speech. Comparing that to taking a gun to MacDonalds is sophistry.

is intimidation

For people who have an irrational fear of guns themselves, regardless of the lack of any threat factor or he presence of law enforcement, yes it is "intimidating". But note that no one was arrested for "intimidation". In other words, that's YOUR emotional reaction. Not what they were doing.

Comparing guns to cars is sophistry.

The comparison was not of guns to cars. It was a comparison of the "fear of people who had no record of being criminals legally buying guns" to the "fear of people who have never killed people with a car buying cars".

Guns are not only used with intent to harm by nutters. They can be used >with intent to harm in a calculated way or under the influence of >alcohol or drugs.

So can cars. Or knives. Or scissors. If your argument is that guns, as well as any object which may be used as a deadly weapon should not be permitted to be posessed by the mentally ill then we are in agreement.

btw, new name?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Carrying guns to a political meeting can only be seen as intimidation. There is no other reason to carry weapons to a meeting. At the moment, US and allied troops are in Afghanistan trying to ensure the democratic process against the violent, undemocratic interference of men with guns. Perhaps they now need to be on the streets of their homeland defending due democratic process from men with guns.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Carrying guns to a political meeting can only be seen as intimidation

Clearly neither the local Law Enforcement Officers on site nor the US Secret Service agree with you. Otherwise the people in question would have been charged.

At the moment, US and allied troops are in Afghanistan trying to ensure >the democratic process against the violent, undemocratic interference of >men with guns.

If you think that's a "gun" issue then you are clueless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Paranoia and pride are the key factors here. The guy who thought it was in his right to bring a gun (much less an assault weapon), obviously was paranoid that he had to protect himself in the oft-chance that someone would start shooting their gun at this convention center. He is probably the type who also believes that he will likely encounter a terrorist hijacking on an airplane, so he would probably demand that he should be able to carry weapons on board a plane as well.

I really would like to tell this bozo that I am an American citizen, and like most, don't feel there is a justifiable need to carry one with me 24/7. Yes, there is the slim possibility that I may encounter a situation where someone is suddenly firing off a gun. However, as much as I would fear that perpetrator, I would just as much fear an innocent citizen holding a gun as well, since I can't assume that they have been properly trained to handle a gun. Yes, guns don't kill, but in untrained hands, they also don't protect well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Paranoia and pride are the key factors here. The guy who thought it was >in his right to bring a gun (much less an assault weapon),

Actually it WAS his right under Arizona State Law, hence no one was charged or arrested.

obviously was paranoid that he had to protect himself in the oft-chance >that someone would start shooting their gun at this convention center.

That's not what the article says. They brought guns with them as a display of their rights under Arizona Law.

He is probably the type who also believes that he will likely encounter >a terrorist hijacking on an airplane, so he would probably demand that >he should be able to carry weapons on board a plane as well.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Either way that's pure speculation. Incidentally, all intelligent gun owners are aware of the special danger in discharging a firearm onboard a plane in flight, which is why we have trained Air Marshalls.

However, as much as I would fear that perpetrator, I would just as much >fear an innocent citizen holding a gun as well, since I can't assume >that they have been properly trained to handle a gun. Yes, guns don't >kill, but in untrained hands, they also don't protect well.

If you are incapable of assessing the risk difference posed by a perpetrator of a crime holding a gun, and an innocent citizen who happened to be armed trying to stop the perpatrator, then you have a very serious judgement deficiency.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The loons on the far right have been stirring them into a frenzy. Now these loons are packing weapons to support their right to bare arms. But all they are doing is following the paranoia that they have been fed.

It is sad to see how folks actually believe the far right media and not the actual news sources.

Loons are loons and the far right is run by loons right now. Hope none of them go the route of the far right religious fanatical terrorist in their use of violence.

To try and force ones beliefs by trying to intimidate is cowardly at best.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There are one thousand rallies planned across the country tomorrow.It's being called a "Recess Rally."When did the right wing learn to organize like this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you are incapable of assessing the risk difference posed by a perpetrator of a crime holding a gun, and an innocent citizen who happened to be armed trying to stop the perpatrator , then you have a very serious judgement deficiency.

Patent rubbish. How would you work this out in the heat of the moment, under stress, without training in defusing rather than inflaming situations like this? How do you find out who is the perpatrator(sic) and who is innocent- shouldn't that be left to police and the legal process? Oh, and I wait for the glib response along the lines of 'the guy who is shooting people is the baddie'. Your argument that citizens should be free to wield guns- and why wield if you're not prepared to shoot, makes that judgment impossible. Reckless intervention when coupled with a firearm are ill-advised if not criminally negligent, and those faced with the kind of situation you're talking about are more likely to be saved by a pair of running shoes than a gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you are incapable of assessing the risk difference posed by a perpetrator of a crime holding a gun, and an innocent citizen who happened to be armed trying to stop the perpatrator, then you have a very serious judgement deficiency.

You mean to tell me, that if you suddenly happened to see two people in plainclothes shooting at each other, you could honestly tell who is the perpetrator and who is the innocent civilian gun-owner? Ha, right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You mean to tell me, that if you suddenly happened to see two people in >plainclothes shooting at each other, you could honestly tell who is the >perpetrator and who is the innocent civilian gun-owner? Ha, right.

Yor original example suggested you could tell the difference (like you were there, or one was a police uniform) but that you'd be frightened of both equally. OBVIOUSLY if you have no idea who either are you simply hit the deck and seek cover.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Second amendment, baby. Love it, or leave it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is an anti gun zealot that only knows negetivity toward guns... agressiveness from Chicago gangs... this action by these gun owners reminds him that the silent majority are not criminals, in fact over 75million americans own guns while the criminal element of maybe 2000 make the headlines.

aw

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The primary reason for having a gun (and for hoping a lot of your fellow citizens are also carrying one) is as a deterrent. Once you start to get a significant proportion of gun-owners in a state or location, even criminals can do the math and move to somewhere safer.

If you want to mug someone, you would rather do it in NY or California than in Florida or Texas because in the latter two states there is a significant chance that your victim will be armed and, since every state that issues concealed carry permits requires training courses for thoes holding permits, will know how to use his weapon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An armed society is a safe society. Or so they say. The Japanese ought to go back to wearing swords too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites