--Via Yahoo! News--Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.
The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.
Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who monitored the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.
"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends."
Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
-
- Insane DCEmu
- Posts: 106
- https://www.artistsworkshop.eu/meble-kuchenne-na-wymiar-warszawa-gdzie-zamowic/
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:51 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
Hmmm, people carrying automatic weapons outside of an Obama event, not even that a$$hat George W. got that, but he was pro firearm rights...
-
- DCEmu User with No Life
- Posts: 3641
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 1:55 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
This kind of behavior, while presumably legal, is misguided at best and thuggish at worst. It's going to be interpreted as a tacit threat of violence, and he probably knows it.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
It's definitely legal. It's also legal here in much of Missouri, though I'd say most cities and counties (including St. Louis county) have ordinances not allowing it, and it is not specifically guaranteed by the state constitution like in Virginia. Bigger problem is most police officers don't know that here. In some ways, open carry makes perfect sense. It's a very clear preventive measure - don't try to hurt me, because as you can see I have a loaded gun. As opposed to concealed carry, which is a reactive measure or a theoretical threat for would-be muggers, etc.
Anyway, it would make a great deal more sense to carry guns in protest if Obama was indicating he was going to introduce new gun control legislation, but I haven't heard anything of the sort...
So I don't get the point, other than what Ex-Cyber is getting at. By carrying guns openly near areas where that isn't allowed, they're just making a difficult situation more tense. It must be said, however, that none of these people carrying guns at these protests are actually causing any problems.
Anyway, it would make a great deal more sense to carry guns in protest if Obama was indicating he was going to introduce new gun control legislation, but I haven't heard anything of the sort...
So I don't get the point, other than what Ex-Cyber is getting at. By carrying guns openly near areas where that isn't allowed, they're just making a difficult situation more tense. It must be said, however, that none of these people carrying guns at these protests are actually causing any problems.
How to be a Conservative:
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
-
- DCEmu User with No Life
- Posts: 3641
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 1:55 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
To explain a bit more what I meant, I think it's misguided if they realize that it will be interpreted as a threat but think that asserting gun rights is too important to let that stop them, and thuggish if they're doing it because they actually want to convey such a threat. I hope it's just the former, but the latter is too plausible to ignore given some of the strains of far-right thought. The motivations of different individuals might vary, but in the particular case of the guy with the AR-15 it's hard to be very charitable. It's designed for military use, and looks the part.
Also, I didn't see this before, and I think it illustrates my concerns a bit:
Also, I didn't see this before, and I think it illustrates my concerns a bit:
For those who don't recognize the wording, this is almost certainly a reference to a famous Thomas Jefferson quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants". This is a perennial favorite of far-right militia/"Patriot movement" types, i.e. people who more or less spend a lot of effort preparing for a civil war with the government on one side and "sovereign citizens" on the other.Last week, during Obama's health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
-
- Damn Dirty Ape
- Posts: 5031
- Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:11 pm
- Location: Saugerties, NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
Why do people feel the need to walk around with guns? Gun accidents can't happen where there aren't guns, so common sense tells me that guns don't belong around people.
- Eviltaco64X
- DCEmu Ultra Poster
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:12 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
It always falls back on the argument that "law-abiding people will abide by a new law that bans guns while the criminals they were protecting themselves from won't".OneThirty8 wrote:Why do people feel the need to walk around with guns? Gun accidents can't happen where there aren't guns, so common sense tells me that guns don't belong around people.
-
- Damn Dirty Ape
- Posts: 5031
- Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:11 pm
- Location: Saugerties, NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
That's the argument that I always hear, and I still can't say that I know of a single good reason a law-abiding citizen needs a gun. Those things are dangerous and destructive and I don't want them anywhere near me or the people I love. I should be able to go out in public anywhere I choose and know that nobody is allowed to be walking around with a gun.Eviltaco64X wrote:It always falls back on the argument that "law-abiding people will abide by a new law that bans guns while the criminals they were protecting themselves from won't".OneThirty8 wrote:Why do people feel the need to walk around with guns? Gun accidents can't happen where there aren't guns, so common sense tells me that guns don't belong around people.
- Eviltaco64X
- DCEmu Ultra Poster
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:12 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
If you live in a bad area with high crime rates, then a gun could be useful if you're a complete stranger. A few people I know have been robbed in their homes or mugged because they didn't have a gun to protect themselves. If anything, a gun is best kept in something like a lockbox in a closet. It's something you don't ever want to use on someone else, but it's there just in case.OneThirty8 wrote:That's the argument that I always hear, and I still can't say that I know of a single good reason a law-abiding citizen needs a gun. Those things are dangerous and destructive and I don't want them anywhere near me or the people I love. I should be able to go out in public anywhere I choose and know that nobody is allowed to be walking around with a gun.Eviltaco64X wrote:It always falls back on the argument that "law-abiding people will abide by a new law that bans guns while the criminals they were protecting themselves from won't".OneThirty8 wrote:Why do people feel the need to walk around with guns? Gun accidents can't happen where there aren't guns, so common sense tells me that guns don't belong around people.
Also, if they were to put a ban on guns, then knife crime would probably increase (much like it did in the UK). If knife crime is high, then they might ban extra-sharp kitchen knives. It goes from there. :/
Our government simply can't tell everyone what they can and cannot do (which is why there are still deaths from guns when murder is obviously a crime).
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
Perhaps you don't like hunting, gun collecting, and don't find guns fun to shoot, but regardless of whether you think it outweighs the downsides of having them around... You do realize people regularly use guns to prevent crimes and save their own lives and the lives of those around them, right? Is that not a good reason?OneThirty8 wrote:That's the argument that I always hear, and I still can't say that I know of a single good reason a law-abiding citizen needs a gun. Those things are dangerous and destructive and I don't want them anywhere near me or the people I love. I should be able to go out in public anywhere I choose and know that nobody is allowed to be walking around with a gun.Eviltaco64X wrote:It always falls back on the argument that "law-abiding people will abide by a new law that bans guns while the criminals they were protecting themselves from won't".OneThirty8 wrote:Why do people feel the need to walk around with guns? Gun accidents can't happen where there aren't guns, so common sense tells me that guns don't belong around people.
How to be a Conservative:
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
You have to believe everything that has ever gone wrong in the history of your country was due to Liberals.
-
- Damn Dirty Ape
- Posts: 5031
- Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:11 pm
- Location: Saugerties, NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
No, it's not. I don't feel the guns are the best option. It's not like you have the opportunity to be a gun-blazing hero every day. Guns are dangerous, and people who use them to prevent crimes are counting on the fact that the danger is only to the person or persons they intend to harm.Lartrak wrote:Perhaps you don't like hunting, gun collecting, and don't find guns fun to shoot, but regardless of whether you think it outweighs the downsides of having them around... You do realize people regularly use guns to prevent crimes and save their own lives and the lives of those around them, right? Is that not a good reason?OneThirty8 wrote:That's the argument that I always hear, and I still can't say that I know of a single good reason a law-abiding citizen needs a gun. Those things are dangerous and destructive and I don't want them anywhere near me or the people I love. I should be able to go out in public anywhere I choose and know that nobody is allowed to be walking around with a gun.Eviltaco64X wrote:It always falls back on the argument that "law-abiding people will abide by a new law that bans guns while the criminals they were protecting themselves from won't".OneThirty8 wrote:Why do people feel the need to walk around with guns? Gun accidents can't happen where there aren't guns, so common sense tells me that guns don't belong around people.
As far as your other point, I know that some people like to hunt and maybe guns are fun to shoot, but we have farms to provide us with food and just because something is fun doesn't mean it should be legal. I think it's fun to drive my car 90 mph, but I understand why the police tend to pull me over when I do.
- Eviltaco64X
- DCEmu Ultra Poster
- Posts: 1787
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:12 pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
You make it sound like hunting is as wreckless as driving at 90 mph. Say you get in a car accident and they have to get your possibly paralyzed/dead body out with the jaws of life.OneThirty8 wrote:No, it's not. I don't feel the guns are the best option. It's not like you have the opportunity to be a gun-blazing hero every day. Guns are dangerous, and people who use them to prevent crimes are counting on the fact that the danger is only to the person or persons they intend to harm.Lartrak wrote:Perhaps you don't like hunting, gun collecting, and don't find guns fun to shoot, but regardless of whether you think it outweighs the downsides of having them around... You do realize people regularly use guns to prevent crimes and save their own lives and the lives of those around them, right? Is that not a good reason?OneThirty8 wrote:That's the argument that I always hear, and I still can't say that I know of a single good reason a law-abiding citizen needs a gun. Those things are dangerous and destructive and I don't want them anywhere near me or the people I love. I should be able to go out in public anywhere I choose and know that nobody is allowed to be walking around with a gun.Eviltaco64X wrote:It always falls back on the argument that "law-abiding people will abide by a new law that bans guns while the criminals they were protecting themselves from won't".OneThirty8 wrote:Why do people feel the need to walk around with guns? Gun accidents can't happen where there aren't guns, so common sense tells me that guns don't belong around people.
As far as your other point, I know that some people like to hunt and maybe guns are fun to shoot, but we have farms to provide us with food and just because something is fun doesn't mean it should be legal. I think it's fun to drive my car 90 mph, but I understand why the police tend to pull me over when I do.
The worst thing that can happen in a hunting accident is that someone would accidentally get shot. However, most states have laws in effect that make you have to wear something bright like orange. If you were to take away hunting, you'd just have a lot of pissed off men with guns. Also, there wouldn't be much deer meet/jerky.
-
- Damn Dirty Ape
- Posts: 5031
- Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:11 pm
- Location: Saugerties, NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
The point was that a person driving 90 mph doesn't intend to hurt anybody, but it is more likely to happen than when a person is driving at a reasonable speed. Gun accidents are only likely to happen in the presence of guns, and reasonable people shouldn't be carrying guns anyway.Eviltaco64X wrote: You make it sound like hunting is as wreckless as driving at 90 mph. Say you get in a car accident and they have to get your possibly paralyzed/dead body out with the jaws of life.
- Zealous zerotype
- zerotype
- Posts: 3701
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 7:11 pm
- Location: Nashville,TN
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
I know that when I move out I want a shotgun with slug shells in case anybody breaks into my house they sure as hell are not leaving. I also know a retired pharmacist that has a lot of gun for collecting/shooting for fun purposes he is pretty old (almost 70 I believe) he has killed 0 people.
SCO=SCUM=M$=SCO it keeps repeating
i'm a randite
DYTDMFBSB?
There must have been some mistake
I'm not the one who should be saved
My divinity has been denied
Mary and me were both fucked by God
i'm a randite
DYTDMFBSB?
There must have been some mistake
I'm not the one who should be saved
My divinity has been denied
Mary and me were both fucked by God
- pixel
- Soul Sold for DCEmu
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 10:52 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
Argh.
Let's keep our guns, but leave them at home for the town hall debate.
Problem solved.
Let's keep our guns, but leave them at home for the town hall debate.
Problem solved.
-
- Damn Dirty Ape
- Posts: 5031
- Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:11 pm
- Location: Saugerties, NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
That's a short-term solution that I can live with. I still think that the notion that we need to arm ourselves is pretty ridiculous. Why are people so afraid of their neighbors? I think that I'd have a hard time enjoying my life if I had that nagging thought in the back of my head that somebody was always out to get me.pixel wrote:Argh.
Let's keep our guns, but leave them at home for the town hall debate.
Problem solved.
- Specially Cork
- Moderator
- Posts: 11632
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 10:01 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
Keeping a gun in your home would protect you against burglars primarily. Every country has burglars, but burglars wielding guns seems quite strange to me. If this doesn't seem strange in the US, maybe it's time to ask "Why?". This classic pro-gun argument makes perfect sense with gang crime, drug crime etc., but that isn't whats threatening Mr. NRA's house and family.It always falls back on the argument that "law-abiding people will abide by a new law that bans guns while the criminals they were protecting themselves from won't".
-
- DCEmu User with No Life
- Posts: 3641
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 1:55 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
To a non-trivial part of the NRA crowd, it's not really about safety but rather sovereignty. The basic idea is that property rights in one's home are sacred and the homeowner is sovereign . The homeowner thus has the moral (and, in some states, legal) authority to execute intruders. It's like the old saying "a man's home is his castle"; the legal doctrine is even called "castle doctrine".BoneyCork wrote:Keeping a gun in your home would protect you against burglars primarily. Every country has burglars, but burglars wielding guns seems quite strange to me. If this doesn't seem strange in the US, maybe it's time to ask "Why?". This classic pro-gun argument makes perfect sense with gang crime, drug crime etc., but that isn't whats threatening Mr. NRA's house and family.It always falls back on the argument that "law-abiding people will abide by a new law that bans guns while the criminals they were protecting themselves from won't".
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
- Specially Cork
- Moderator
- Posts: 11632
- Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 10:01 am
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
And these same people call the Muslim world barbaric for cutting off hands and stoning people. No pro-gun argument is ever going to stand up to criticism when an outdated and moronic belief in this right is at its heart. It's a joke.The homeowner thus has the moral (and, in some states, legal) authority to execute intruders.
-
- DCEmu User with No Life
- Posts: 3641
- Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 1:55 pm
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
I think you might be taking it the wrong way; actually promoting execution isn't the point, nor is it necessarily a cultural norm. I'll admit that I worded that somewhat provocatively, but I don't think I'm really misrepresenting the essence of what's in the law (though the exact standards vary; a flat-out execution of a restrained intruder wouldn't pass muster in every state with a castle law) or the culture behind it. It's often framed as a self-defense issue by interest groups and politicians trying to sell the laws, but if you actually look at individuals who care about and strongly support this kind of law, many of them will tell you flat-out that they wouldn't hesitate to (for example) shoot a fleeing burglar in the back of the head, or would at least say that it would be wrong to punish a homeowner for doing so. Some of that might be Internet Tough Guy Syndrome (or the equivalent for letters to the editor), but I think it's rooted in real beliefs either way. The issue isn't whether the homeowner is in any actual danger; the core idea is that the intruder has violated the sanctity of the home, and the homeowner's judgment in fighting back should be considered beyond question. You might still think this is backwards, but I want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting the position (even though I disagree with it). We already had some related discussion in this thread.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
-
- Damn Dirty Ape
- Posts: 5031
- Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:11 pm
- Location: Saugerties, NY
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest
It's this kind of thing that really alarms me. My stuff is worth a lot to me. I still wouldn't kill a person over it. It's just stuff.Ex-Cyber wrote:I think you might be taking it the wrong way; actually promoting execution isn't the point, nor is it necessarily a cultural norm. I'll admit that I worded that somewhat provocatively, but I don't think I'm really misrepresenting the essence of what's in the law (though the exact standards vary; a flat-out execution of a restrained intruder wouldn't pass muster in every state with a castle law) or the culture behind it. It's often framed as a self-defense issue by interest groups and politicians trying to sell the laws, but if you actually look at individuals who care about and strongly support this kind of law, many of them will tell you flat-out that they wouldn't hesitate to (for example) shoot a fleeing burglar in the back of the head, or would at least say that it would be wrong to punish a homeowner for doing so. Some of that might be Internet Tough Guy Syndrome (or the equivalent for letters to the editor), but I think it's rooted in real beliefs either way. The issue isn't whether the homeowner is in any actual danger; the core idea is that the intruder has violated the sanctity of the home, and the homeowner's judgment in fighting back should be considered beyond question. You might still think this is backwards, but I want to make sure I'm not misrepresenting the position (even though I disagree with it). We already had some related discussion in this thread.