The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old August 12, 2009, 03:25 PM   #26
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
As long as the Secret Service keeps the secure area a reasonable size, I'm fine with declaring the area where the POTUS is to be a sensitive place. Assassination is a real threat for state leaders, and security manpower is limited.
This one seems a reasonable exception (LOS/200-1000yds from where the President is speaking).


Where the president is is certainly a sensitive area. I agree that as long as the designated sensitive area is reasonable I have no problem.

The problem arises as to what is a reasonable distance. I think LOS out to 1000 meters is reasonable. But you will certainly get someone to claim it should be LOS to 2400 meters because a .50 BMG rifle "is capable" of killing the someone from that distance.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 04:05 PM   #27
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,093
Yep, the guy had the right to carry that gun. However, his doing so was not very smart. He will most likely encounter difficulty the next time he goes to buy a gun.

While the USSS was distracted by the man and his gun there could have been a real threat to POTUS that was not realized.
thallub is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 04:42 PM   #28
HuntAndFish
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2006
Location: Kansas City, MO.
Posts: 580
Quote:
While the USSS was distracted by the man and his gun there could have been a real threat to POTUS that was not realized.

While this might be a possibility, I doubt it. The SS has more sense than most politicians or the media when it comes to matters involving a gun. Likely, they recognized this for what it was quickly and moved on to more important matters.
__________________
NRA Benefactor
MSSA Life Member
HuntAndFish is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 05:54 PM   #29
Jofaba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 322
No, I am not a cop.

I heard about this story as it broke, and well before any comments started pouring in on any of the articles. Once information started coming in, it seemed to me like he was obviously making a statement.

So it was in my head all day, and I checked the news throughout the work day for updates. Everyone was focused on the guy, the gun, freaking out (in the news) that he wasn't being arrested, and it was quite clear that he was on private property, given permission to be there, and was not inciting violence, and most importantly, was legally allowed to carry that way.

But we're talking about the first black president, getting something multiple times more death threats than the previous president, and a obvious anger on both sides of the isle.

With the president coming in to discuss a hot topic that's got the entire country arguing with each other, here you have a guy with a thigh holstered gun.

I don't think he'd do ANYTHING with the gun. He seemed like an intelligent peaceful protester besides the perceived threat of the gun combined with the sign.

I was much more worried about some crazy taking that guys gun. That's what really got into my head. The very first picture I saw, the gun is sitting far back from his thigh and looked very easily accessible by anyone angry* enough to take any opportunty they were given.

I don't know how close he was to the event. I hear he left way before Obama was anywhere around, and i'm sure the SS had him fully under their watch. I'm sure everything went the way it did because everything was in control.

If he was closer, and the crowd more ruley, I'm sorry but if I was in charge of keeping the president safe I would have yes, broken the law, and had him detained. In a situation where thousands of people are there with cloaked intent, and there's someone there who presents a possible problem, you just don't need that. You have to be looking out for subtle stuff, and here's a sore thumb just asking to become a thorn in your side and make things difficult, and possibly volatile.

Stone me now if you wish.

*mods, don't know if you get alerts everytime a filtered word is used, but I'm not posting angry. That's two times in like two days. I apologize. I cuss like a sailor in the real world and don't even think about it.
Jofaba is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 06:39 PM   #30
javabum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Californication
Posts: 264
what really sucks is that thoes of you who are against him being there need a refresher course in the 2ND ammd.he has a lawful right to have the gun....a legal right to bare arms....and for you to say you would violate his rights ****** me off.
i joined this forum with the notion that you all were pro 2A.and from the previous posts i can see you are not.if this is the case i guess you would violate my rights as well.

what a bunch of "HYPOCRITES".
those of you who would violate him or those like him for doing what is legally right.... you make me sick.

ban me for this i don't care.but it needed to be said.
__________________
Stupidity Should Hurt.....Immensely

NRA Life member
javabum is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 06:43 PM   #31
Trashcan-man
Member
 
Join Date: July 27, 2009
Location: North FL
Posts: 76
Jofaba,
1. Yes B.H Obama is our first balck potus....he does not, however receive more death threats than any other modern potus. Those threats are more publicized by the media but believe it or not, everything you see on tv or read in a newspaper is NOT always true.
2. People 'freak out' about guns because they are villified in todays society and because not enough people have actually taken the time to actually go out and shoot one. People freaking out doesn't give le the right to take someone else's rights away.
3. It doesn't matter what you're protecting or how many people are there...YOU CANNOT ARREST SOMEONE BASED ON WHAT COULD HAPPEN!!! If that was the case then we could arrest every single person who is near a bar and has a car for fear that they would DUI and kill someone....doesn't make too much sense does it?

Thank god you aren't LEO...although with that attitude I think if you were you wouldn't be for long
__________________
Pepsi is the anti-christ - Me

Omnem dimittite spem, o vos intrantes - The Devine Comedy
Trashcan-man is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 06:48 PM   #32
Trashcan-man
Member
 
Join Date: July 27, 2009
Location: North FL
Posts: 76
Javabum.
I don't think that there is a bunch of hypocrites here...just one. I think he got the wrong url in his browser. I only saw 1 guy posting about arresting him...everybody else was supportave
__________________
Pepsi is the anti-christ - Me

Omnem dimittite spem, o vos intrantes - The Devine Comedy
Trashcan-man is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 06:51 PM   #33
javabum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Californication
Posts: 264
why do you say i wouldn't be for long?i believe we have the right to carry according to the law.such as he was doing.seems like your putting me down.
(i stand corrected if your no)but for those of you who would violate him for his legal right to carry regardless where your at (but legally)have some soul searching to do.your either pro or anti.you cant have it both ways.
__________________
Stupidity Should Hurt.....Immensely

NRA Life member
javabum is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 06:58 PM   #34
Jofaba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 322
Hey, I felt kinda dirty when I said it, but it'd be disingenuous for me not to admit it.

I'm sure if I had gone through the training and had the help of the SS I would have done as what occurred. I was just sharing a thought that I couldn't beat out of my head with any logical argument regardless of how much I've tried.

I'm curious, if this had turned out ANY OTHER WAY, how would we be reacting as a community? If someone had gained control of his gun? If someone had screamed "he has a gun!" and caused a stampede?

I don't blindly believe everything I read or hear on the news. I just don't find it that hard to believe given the circumstances.

It may not be true, but:

Quote:
Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service.
I don't know the man but a quick search seems that he's got a credible history and has lead to some arrests and policy changes.

Regardless, I'm not looking for a fight that I know that I will lose, because I KNOW that I am less informed than most of those on these boards. You have greater life experience than I do to draw from, and I am still very wet behind the ears in everything gun.

I wanted to share a thought and get your response, and that I've done and received. I am happy to have the discussion and, as all the discussions I have on this board, I learn and am inspired to further research.

This is why I love this site. Access to so many viewpoints and great inspiration for further education.

--

Additionally, this site (and being a member) has helped sculpt many viewpoints and answers many questions that I had before coming here. If I didn't share my concerns and say what some may consider stupid, then I'd never get the answers that I was looking for. I'm not here to be popular or run with the herd. I'm here to learn.

I am well aware of what URL I am posting in. My current views may be polar to yours but that doesn't mean that I don't belong here. I got my first gun just around 2 years ago, joined this site just a bit over four months ago, and just got my carry permit about 2 months ago.

Just because it says "senior member" under my name doesn't mean that I ride the line. I've got my opinions and as I've earlier admitted, I am entirely still wet behind the ears. There's a lot of feelings I have now towards different subjects that I probably felt completely different about before joining here.

I have 2 friends in real life who are into guns and I rarely get to chat with them about this kind of stuff. The rest of the people around me are pretty anti gun, or not willing to talk about it. This is the background that I come from.

Last edited by Jofaba; August 12, 2009 at 07:05 PM.
Jofaba is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 06:59 PM   #35
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
I have no problem with his open carry, but his choice of t-shirts does leave something to be desired. It just happens to be the same quote that Timothy McVeigh had on his t-shirt when he blew up the the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 06:59 PM   #36
Trashcan-man
Member
 
Join Date: July 27, 2009
Location: North FL
Posts: 76
Java, I'm with you. I think he hs the right to be there and am glad he was. Maybe next time therre will be 100 people with guns...the more the better. I was talking to the guy above you who wanted to detain/arrest him. When I started typing your response wasn't there.

On a side note the guy at the rally should open his own bowling alley...he already has 10 lb. Balls...lol
__________________
Pepsi is the anti-christ - Me

Omnem dimittite spem, o vos intrantes - The Devine Comedy
Trashcan-man is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 07:02 PM   #37
javabum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Californication
Posts: 264
all is good Trashcan-man.i thought you spelled my name wrong,but i know now you were posting to Jofaba.sorry.
__________________
Stupidity Should Hurt.....Immensely

NRA Life member
javabum is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 07:53 PM   #38
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
I have no problem with his open carry, but his choice of t-shirts does leave something to be desired. It just happens to be the same quote that Timothy McVeigh had on his t-shirt when he blew up the the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City.
So you saw the video of the bombing then?
pnac is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 09:27 PM   #39
TenmaNeko
Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 62
He was well within his rights to wear the shirt, carry the sign and carry the gun.

However, I don't think it was necessarily the wisest thing he could have done, and I do not think it puts the rest of us in the best light.
TenmaNeko is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 09:37 PM   #40
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,317
The Secret Service has a dual mission: Investigative and Protective.

It is its Protective mission that we are discussing here: "...to protect national leaders, visiting heads of state and government, designated sites and National Special Security Events."
Quote:
By law, the Secret Service is authorized to protect:
  • The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect
  • The immediate families of the above individuals
  • Former presidents, their spouses, except when the spouse re-marries
  • Children of former presidents until age 16
  • Visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad
  • Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election
  • Other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President and
  • National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
All of the above can be viewed, here.

Are they proactive in protection of the President? Highly. Given the nature of their job and the immediate concerns due to national security, yes, they can and probably do skirt the law. They are empowered by Congress to make arrests under mere reasonable suspicion (they don't need probable cause and the Court has upheld this power).

Like what they do or how they do it, or not, they are completely within lawful means to "spirit away" anyone who they feel would be a threat to the President... To the point of using lethal force.

Your rights - Constitutional or otherwise - mean nothing to them, in performing their duties. The reality is, that it can't be any other way.

Some of you can whine all you want about this, but at the end of the day, the Secret Service will protect their charges in whatever manner they see fit to do.

Saying all of this, does not make me, or anyone else holding this view, anti-gun. It is what it is. Deal with it.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:00 PM   #41
Yellowfin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: West Upstate NY
Posts: 2,303
Precisely why I for one say the Secret Service should be abolished. No government agency at any time should be above the law, nor any elected official. The entire basis, at least in theory, of our government as it was designed to be was that the elected officials all the way up to and including the president are to be ordinary citizens and not elected royalty. A president is replaceable. Goodness knows we didn't pick this one on any rigid criteria of experience and expertise. Under express limited powers of government, he isn't supposed to be some all powerful semi-god--he's not supposed to be powerful enough to be excessively important. There is absolutely no compelling interest to give him some exalted and elevated priveledge, and it is in fact to the contrary of liberty and the proper relationship of government to the people that any president, Congressman, or any other similar person be treated as anything but ordinary. It is abundantly clear the president has little or nothing to do with serving the people-his purpose when yours and my tax dollars pay his salary- when he himself has so many people going to ridiculous lengths to serve him. It is clear that this aura of power and, thanks to the SS, invincibility, that he for one takes it that he is ABOVE the people, and that is a dangerous thing indeed which we have seen for too long from others in office. He's supposed to be a clerk, a dinner host, a historian, and occasionally a leader, but none of this rock star crap--but clearly the latter has taken vast priority over the former.

Make the guy walk on foot and carry his own sidearm like the rest of us. Make him have every single legal obstacle we do--make him have to be part of a lawsuit to have a NYC and/or NJ non resident CCW if he wants armed protection there. Make him have to be limited to 10 round magazines in CA and NY and FMJ in NJ. Make him have to take 12 hour classes for a NM permit. Make him have to wonder whether he can OC in TX or not and if not show up at the steps of the capitol in Austin as one of the crowd to hold up a sign saying "Yes We Can...Open Carry!" Make him have to open carry unloaded in CA and have to take a snake route around all the 1000' school zones.

MAKE HIM NOT ABOVE THE LAW OR THE LIFE OF AN EVERYDAY CITIZEN. He has no right or cause whatsoever to be any different than one of us, and it is clearly to our detriment that he is treated and regarded and thereby led to believe that he is above everyone and can do no wrong. There's a reason the Magna Carta is the oldest basis we have for our government and it's about time we stopped neglecting its central precepts.
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org
New York gun owners unite! Join now! http://www.nyshooters.net
May Issue is the new Separate but Equal.

Last edited by Yellowfin; August 12, 2009 at 10:11 PM.
Yellowfin is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:05 PM   #42
Jofaba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 322
Quote:
what really sucks is that thoes of you who are against him being there need a refresher course in the 2ND ammd.he has a lawful right to have the gun....a legal right to bare arms....and for you to say you would violate his rights ****** me off.
i joined this forum with the notion that you all were pro 2A.and from the previous posts i can see you are not.if this is the case i guess you would violate my rights as well.

what a bunch of "HYPOCRITES".
those of you who would violate him or those like him for doing what is legally right.... you make me sick.

ban me for this i don't care.but it needed to be said.
Sorry if i sickened you, but hey, that's my 1st amendment right (comes just before the 2nd).

Not sure you should consider that every single person here shares your views though. I'm sure that I am in the extreme minority, but this isn't an all or nothing club. At least not to my knowledge. Disagreement is allowed, and opposing ideas are allowed. At least to my knowledge.

I am entirely 2nd amendment. I will admit though, open carry rubs me in the wrong way. Most people that I've talked to, both in this site and in person, admit that they'd almost exclusively rather conceal carry, and not trouble themselves with open carry. Also, open carry carries less requirements than concealed. So, basically anyone can open carry. And previous to this discussion, I've seen an overwhelming agreement that open carry scares the crap out of people.

I am not hypocritical, though I am sorry that you view my statements as such. My statements which have been the center of debate here are about a man making a statement with open carry display at a presidential event. I don't think it added to the conversation, others do. That's the bulk of it.
Jofaba is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:09 PM   #43
Jofaba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 322
Quote:
A president is replaceable.
Wow. I did not expect the conversation to actually produce such a quote, but wow. Idealism aside, I have no idea how to react to such a statement.
Jofaba is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:31 PM   #44
dstyle47
Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2008
Posts: 61
"I am entirely 2nd amendment. I will admit though, open carry rubs me in the wrong way. Most people that I've talked to, both in this site and in person, admit that they'd almost exclusively rather conceal carry, and not trouble themselves with open carry. Also, open carry carries less requirements than concealed. So, basically anyone can open carry. And previous to this discussion, I've seen an overwhelming agreement that open carry scares the crap out of people."

-while it is certainly true that open carry does scare a lot of people, i think that is in part, because so few people practice open carry. People that know nothing of firearms and get their only information about firearms from a horribly baised media that demonizes firearms, will have fear when they first see one on a person. They will assume this person is carring to rob or kill as they read and see so much in the news. I feel that for this very reason open carry should be practiced. Open carry should be practiced to combat this incorrect view, if people see that good, polite, upstanding citizens are open carring perhapse they will then have a better view of the firearm community. I feel that this is one reason why this young man did indeed carry. In my view open carry should be done, and "open carriers" are actually ambassadors of the firearm culture to those outside of it, and thus should act in an exemplory manner. Sorry for the ramble
dstyle47 is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:39 PM   #45
Jofaba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 322
That was not a ramble, it was a well formed argument. I may be naive, and I entirely admit that, and have throughout this discussion, but my experience is that such an action does not open anti's to change their minds. Open carry is so rare, and quizically so legal in most states, that its just a straight up phenomenon. It's not "wrong", but it's rare and, thus, unfamiliar.

I am slowly turning more conservative with each and every day, but I refuse to hold back any of my thoughts when it comes to these debates. I am willing to be the bad guy if that's what I am to be painted as. I have no greater control over my own opinions than anyone else does.

As I've said, I am here to learn. I am not here to make friends. Nor am I here to make enemies.

I slide, daily, closer to most of your ideals (I believe). But some things hold me back through very drastic means.

Again, I love the discussion and the passion. I regret nothing, and respect every sane point of view presented thus far.
Jofaba is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:47 PM   #46
Trashcan-man
Member
 
Join Date: July 27, 2009
Location: North FL
Posts: 76
Isn't the whole point of the constitution and the gov't to PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE FEW FROM THE WILL OF THE MANY? I was always taught that the smallest minority is the individual, so the gov't is supposed to protect individual rights. This guy was exercising his 1st and 2nd amendment rights, protesting and bearing arms, and the gov't should be there to keep others from trying to take that away.
I absolutely agree that the SS had him closely watched and so they should. You never know what someone's intentions are, but that doesn't mean that they should have detained him. I also agree that the POTUS should have a "safe zone" of 200-1000 meters around him.
__________________
Pepsi is the anti-christ - Me

Omnem dimittite spem, o vos intrantes - The Devine Comedy
Trashcan-man is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 11:13 PM   #47
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Not sure what you're so stunned by, Jofaba...

... about the "a president is replaceable" quote.

He did NOT say that anybody should be harmed. What he said was that all of our elected and appointed officials are supposed to be on the same plane as the rest of us, which is historically and Constitutionally accurate.

The framers would probably have been aghast at Secret Service protections for elected officials; most of them were actively involved in the American Revolution, and were at personal and financial risk throughout.

Their idea was to make strong institutions, that answered to and worked for the People, and not to create a new aristocracy. They had worked too hard to get rid of the old one.
MLeake is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 12:19 AM   #48
AZAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,103
Jofaba

Quote:
Also, open carry carries less requirements than concealed. So, basically anyone can open carry.
Let us get down to brass tacks, as it were.

There are two states that allow concealed carry without: an application, a permit, any testing, fingerprinting, etc...; just as a resident of the state you have this right. (Note: there are a few exceptions, but generally every adult allowed to own a firearm can CC.) Do you know which two states these are? Has the media shown you that these two states have proven that they are filled with "gun nuts" who go off half cocked and wreak havoc and mayhem at every chance?

I would guess that you don't know which two states these are; and even if you did it is not from the media portraying them in the light above. Guess what? These states also allow open carry to their residents. Again, no media frenzy about "gun nuts" crawling out of the woodwork. Why?

It is not usually the average "law abiding" citizen who creates problems involving guns. Most of these folks that do are called "criminals". And by definition, they really don't care about any gun laws; except trying not to get caught with their "hand in the cookie jar". They want to carry, openly or concealed, they carry. (The smarter ones generally concealed.)

If I see someone open carrying, I am generally not to concerned. I open carry from time to time too. Most of the time I CC. I personally believe that it does give me an advantage that I lose with OC.

Regardless, I am far more concerned with the "criminals" carrying than any average citizen carrying. Restricting the average citizen's right to keep and bear arms is just downright dangerous and directly opposing the framers intentions.
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...

Last edited by AZAK; August 13, 2009 at 12:28 AM.
AZAK is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 12:58 AM   #49
azredhawk44
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
Quote:
A president is replaceable.
I completely agree.

An assassin, willing to trade his life for that of a hated elected official, should be able to accomplish his goal with little fuss.

This would have two benefits:
1. Elected officials would fear the plebes a bit more... this is good.
2. Elected officials would avoid policies that riled up the plebes.
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old August 13, 2009, 01:05 AM   #50
javabum
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Californication
Posts: 264
hear hear azredhawk44....i agree.
but what cannot be replaced is those who fought and died
for our rights that are being trampled every day.

for that reason we need to stand ever vigilant in our fight to
keep our rights as afforded to us by our forefathers.
__________________
Stupidity Should Hurt.....Immensely

NRA Life member
javabum is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15057 seconds with 7 queries