The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old August 11, 2009, 10:21 PM   #1
Grimlok
Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2009
Posts: 16
Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_256952.html

I think this guy kept his cool against a belligerent Chris Matthews interview. After a little digging I came up with approx. 4 other articles from various news papers. One stated that someone wanted a court injunction to forcibly disarm this man for doing nothing but obeying the laws of his state.

I'm also glad the guy didn't come off as a wacko, spoke clearly and stayed pretty calm compared to the obviously angry Matthews. I'm surprised he even agreed to do the interview for MSNBC.
Grimlok is offline  
Old August 11, 2009, 10:42 PM   #2
DGTigers
Member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2009
Posts: 17
I agree. I think the guy was very well spoken and came off looking like the sane person in that interview with Matthews.

William Kostric makes very good points and did nothing wrong today. I agree and I am glad that he made the statement that guns do not automatically make someone violent and that he was just standing up for our fundamental rights that were given to us in the Constitution.

However, I have seen the type of security that is around the President and I'm not sure that I would be wiling to possibly risk my life like this man possibly did today. He did absolutely nothing wrong, but I still have no desire to put my life in the hands of a government agent that might mistake a good, law abiding citizen with a gun as a possible assassin.

Anyway, I'm glad that he came off as an intelligent, law abiding citizen and got his point across instead of looking like a psycho. If there was ever a competition for who has the biggest set of balls in New Hampshire, this guy is now a finalist!
DGTigers is offline  
Old August 11, 2009, 10:46 PM   #3
azredhawk44
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
Wow! Ballsey. A big +1 to that gentleman.

Open carry to an Obama event. I guarantee he had a sniper on him and two secret service guys nearby the whole time he was there, and his whole ride back home that day. A lot of attention to undergo, and he's on "a list" now.

His point is valid though... and it also made an unspoken point with the union thugs. No muscling the crowd anymore.
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old August 11, 2009, 11:01 PM   #4
Ian0351
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2009
Location: Washington
Posts: 414
Notice how Matthews kept trying to paint him as a radical, even though Matthews himself could easily be called such? Also, he kept putting words in the guy's mouth... We've come a long way as far as what passes for objective journalism these days, eh?
__________________
You can have your churches, I'll keep my guns. Just keep your hands off my paycheck and your eyes out of my backyard.
Join the Libertarian Party! http://www.lp.org

Semper Fidelis
Ian0351 is offline  
Old August 11, 2009, 11:38 PM   #5
unloading
Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2007
Posts: 38
Quote:
We've come a long way as far as what passes for objective journalism these days, eh?
Based on polls showing the public's perception of the media, I don't think it's really passing for objective journalism anymore.
unloading is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 12:18 AM   #6
swk314
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 176
The first link is the full interview with Chris Matthews. I'm glad he kept his cool when he was getting grilled. The second video, for those that haven't seen it yet, is from MSNBC. The second video is more of the same as the media tried IMHO po paint this guy as a whacko, when he was just practicing his constitutional rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XflE0RMiIiA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5MfTZW4TA
swk314 is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 07:13 AM   #7
Jofaba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 322
I don't know about you guys but I could have done without this guy. The net is already digging up tons of stuff on him, true or not who's to say, but he added NOTHING positive to the conversation. Read the comments on any of the articles, especially the "liberal biased" ones, and across the board they're calling him a nutjob, a wacko, a birther, a freeper, etc etc.

Everyone's outraged, and the gun issue is out there on the front page again anchored entirely to negative connotations. I was glad to see that he seemed intelligent and non-confrontational or extremist in his interview, but I still could have done without him.

This was actually the best case scenario for him too. The camera guy who saw the gun could have screamed "he has a gun!" to incite panic and good tv, everyone would have scattered, secret service would have tackled him and arrested him and we'd have a front page story of a registered gun owner coming to a presidential event with unknown intentions. They'd dig up his net activity, maybe he posts here, and this site would be discussed negatively. They track down different members for interviews (I'm certainly easy enough to track down) and get someone, possibly like me, who still has limited knowledge (enough to have an opinion, but not enough to give a good interview)...

To be honest? If I had been in charge of crowd control and protection, I would have arrested him regardless of the legality of such an arrest. I'd "detain him". Say I smelled marijuanna or alcohol on his breath. Whatever it took to move him from the event. He must have been very far away from where the president was going to be and he certainly had a crosshair on him for the rest of the day.
Jofaba is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 07:14 AM   #8
GM-GUY
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2005
Location: The People's Republic of MA
Posts: 149
God, I love New Hampshire !!!

Wish I could have gotten my wife to move there instead of staying in MA.


Anyway, I watched the interview Matthews can go get a tingle in his leg .


You can legally open carry in NH, he followed the rules (no brandishing), and spoke his mind (very well on the interview I might add).

No issue here, just the media attempting to get the public in a tizzy. I wonder what new rule they'll come with in MA now
__________________
EX-USAF, NRA, GOAL, CCW-ALP

PS3 Network ID: GM-GUY
GM-GUY is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 09:05 AM   #9
Kreyzhorse
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Location: NKY
Posts: 11,495
That is excellent, Mattews came off as radical nut job, badgered the guest and was clearly a biased interview while trying to push the guns equal violence agenda.

The guy on the other hand, came off very well and was clearly very level headed.

As far as big balls, there is no doubt that gentleman has them. It was his right, I'm proud he used it, but you know the Secret Service was has on high alert.
__________________
"He who laughs last, laughs dead." Homer Simpson

Last edited by Kreyzhorse; August 12, 2009 at 09:48 AM.
Kreyzhorse is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 09:20 AM   #10
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,818
I was quite impressed, well done.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 09:55 AM   #11
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Everyone's outraged, and the gun issue is out there on the front page again anchored entirely to negative connotations. I was glad to see that he seemed intelligent and non-confrontational or extremist in his interview, but I still could have done without him.
The gun issue is always portrayed by the media entirely with negative connotations. This guy did nothing but good things for the gun movement.

Think about it....

Anyone who is an "anti" is already in agreement with the agenda and will not change, regardless.

Anyone who is already "pro" will see through the nonsense and will not change.

Anyone who is "undecided" may well see through the nonsense as well, and they MIGHT change, another "pro-gunner". If the nonsense was going to change them to "anti" then it already would have, it's not like it's new.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:00 AM   #12
unloading
Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2007
Posts: 38
Quote:
Anyone who is "undecided" may well see through the nonsense as well, and they MIGHT change, another "pro-gunner". If the nonsense was going to change them to "anti" then it already would have, it's not like it's new.
That's the one potential positive from debating a hard core anti gunner with an impartial audience. If you can remain calm and use reason and facts to put forth your argument, you and your side will look much better than the other side that becomes unhinged when they argue.

At the very least you'll get the undecided to think "those anti gun people are nuts - I don't want to align with them at all".
unloading is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:02 AM   #13
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jofaba
To be honest? If I had been in charge of crowd control and protection, I would have arrested him regardless of the legality of such an arrest. I'd "detain him". Say I smelled marijuanna or alcohol on his breath. Whatever it took to move him from the event. He must have been very far away from where the president was going to be and he certainly had a crosshair on him for the rest of the day.
If you're gonna illegally arrest him, hell, you might as well have some fun and rough him up a little. If you kill him, you'd probably even get a medal for it for being so brave and heroic. :barf:
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is online now  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:04 AM   #14
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Where would the civil rights movement be if people worried about the negative implications of refusing to ride in the back of the bus or refusing to allow picket lines to stand in the way of going to school?
buzz_knox is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:22 AM   #15
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,327
He's not the most photogenic guy on the planet, but he did stay calm and appear "normal."

I love the huffington post comments. One guy open carries and they think he tried to assassinate Obama, accuse him of being mentally handicapped, a birther (when he clearly stated he was not), and even go so far as to say he is a sexual predator. So much for liberal tolerance.
raimius is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:26 AM   #16
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
On another note, anywhere the President may be, will be declared a "sensitive area" (ala Heller), and guns will not be allowed, regardless of other State law to the contrary.

That is the one thing, this will result in.

Like it or not, in todays day and age, this type of exception to RKBA should have been obvious from the start to most anyone. I'm surprised it hasn't occured to the PTB.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:31 AM   #17
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,327
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).
raimius is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 10:41 AM   #18
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 333
Why is no one asking why the guy is wearing an earpiece?
pnac is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 11:02 AM   #19
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,168
The guy came across as very calm considering the way Mathews badgered him. He didn't allow Mathews to bait him into making any radical statements and did nothing that would paint himself as a gun toting nut. I'm sure the anti gunners were disappointed with his cool response to Mathews loaded questions.
JWT is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 12:08 PM   #20
Ian0351
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2009
Location: Washington
Posts: 414
pnac: I think the earpiece was to facilitate the interview with the bag of hot air in whatever media center he broadcasts from, Probably not done live from NH.

I am a SEIU member who is outraged by the way my union dues are spent; especially when honest demonstrators are labeled 'protestors' or 'grass roots incitors' and attacked by 'union thugs' who are getting days off of work on my dime (somehow they use pooled 'education days' for political rallying). I need the job, and the union is part of the deal, but their political agenda makes me want to :barf:. If I was attending any political rallies in the near future, I would almost certainly be armed in some fashion to protect myself from the union strongarms that B'Obama has conscripted to ram World Socialism down our throats.
__________________
You can have your churches, I'll keep my guns. Just keep your hands off my paycheck and your eyes out of my backyard.
Join the Libertarian Party! http://www.lp.org

Semper Fidelis
Ian0351 is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 12:17 PM   #21
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,818
Quote:
I would have arrested him regardless of the legality of such an arrest.
I most certainly hope two things, one, you are not in law enforcement, and two, if you are in law enforcement, you are not in my state. Anyone making an irresponsible statement like that should never have arrest powers.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 01:03 PM   #22
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
It was his right, I'm proud he used it, but you know the Secret Service was has on high alert.
I'd bet money they had this guy in the cross-hairs the whole time.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 01:44 PM   #23
swk314
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 176
Quote:
To be honest? If I had been in charge of crowd control and protection, I would have arrested him regardless of the legality of such an arrest. I'd "detain him". Say I smelled marijuanna or alcohol on his breath. Whatever it took to move him from the event. He must have been very far away from where the president was going to be and he certainly had a crosshair on him for the rest of the day.

So you would have made a completely illegal arrest for a man carrying a legal handgun, on private property with permission from the owner?:barf: I truly hope you are not a law enforcement officer.
swk314 is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 02:12 PM   #24
orangello
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2009
Posts: 566
I was glad to see the guy do this without getting into any trouble or causing any major conflict with the SS.
orangello is offline  
Old August 12, 2009, 02:26 PM   #25
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,191
Quote:
To be honest? If I had been in charge of crowd control and protection, I would have arrested him regardless of the legality of such an arrest. I'd "detain him". Say I smelled marijuanna or alcohol on his breath. Whatever it took to move him from the event.
I missed this earlier but just wanted to confirm that you would 1) knowingly make an arrest under false pretenses, 2) expose yourself to civil/criminal liability, and expose your department to public ridicule and civil liability, 3) eliminated any chance you have of ever making an arrest stick again because you are willing to lie to make an arrest, and 4) openly admit that you will lie and commit criminal actions? All because you don't like the lawful actions of an individual?

I also hope that 1) you aren't an officer and thus have no concept of what you are talking about or 2) if you are an officer, your supervisor finds out about this attitude before you screw yourself, the department, and the public.
buzz_knox 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 10:50 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 0.15385 seconds with 9 queries