While I can truly appreciate the abiltiy to open carry at a political event, I can't help to think if it is the wisest decision one could make. I mean really, the guy could be a nut, do something stupid and cause a huge black eye for shooters all over the County, or worse, instantly be made to look like swiss cheese should he make a gesture that might be construed by law enforecment as a threatening gesture. Comments anyone?

we should all stop stepping on the accelerators of our cars to because that is what causes speeding.

 

If it is legal to carry where you are at it should be treated as a non issue! Worried that someone is going to do something stupid with an open carry weapon makes no sense to me what so ever. If you were going to shoot someone why would you make them aware of you having a gun? Is common sense dead these days?

we should all stop stepping on the accelerators of our cars to because that is what causes speeding.

 

If it is legal to carry where you are at it should be treated as a non issue! Worried that someone is going to do something stupid with an open carry weapon makes no sense to me what so ever. If you were going to shoot someone why would you make them aware of you having a gun? Is common sense dead these days?

 

I agree, we should not be intimidated to exercise a right because it is Politically incorrect.

Public ground doesn't become federal just because the President visits your state. And they were never carrying AT speeches. They weren't allowed into the actual halls, they were told by Secret Service where the safe distance was and protested from there. The media acts and reports it to make it seem like they were right outside. Both cases, NH and Arizona, the carriers were blocks away from the actual town hall meetings.

 

The fact they were exercising a right shouldn't scare people. The media asking "how is this possible" should scare people.

Let's be clear here. The "event" that was the big deal was the guy with the "assault" rifle.

 

There's multiple parts to this story, one of the most interesting was the MSLSD scare headline "White men bringing guns to Obama rally".

They then proceed to mention that someone brought an assault rifle to a speech.

 

This is so completely dishonest on many levels.

 

First off, it wasn't an assault rifle. Assault rifles have selective fire. This was a semi-automatic rifle. Not "automatic rifle" like presented in the one story.

 

Next, the person with the semi-automatic rifle was several blocks away. He wasn't near anything.

 

Finally, the whole uproar about white people bringing guns to Obama rallies was triggered by...a black man.

 

"Here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs." -- MSNBC

 

In fact, the editors saw fit to edit the mans out so that no one could tell his skin color.

 

These biased asswipes at MSLSD seem to think they can create a narrative completely contrary to the facts. It's maddening.

"Assault" is a retarded term that should eliminated from a gun owner's vernacular.

 

No responsible gun owner is assaulting anyone with their firearms.

NH and Arizona, the carriers were blocks away from the actual town hall meetings.

 

Actually, they weren't in the case of NH.

I gotta agree with SpecialK on this one..

First off, it wasn't an assault rifle. Assault rifles have selective fire

 

Technically correct. but the term is in such common usage by owners and retailers of firearms that it no longer can be said that the term is incorrect. Owners and the industry themselves are at fault in t

the term is in such common usage by owners and retailers of firearms that it no longer can be said that the term is incorrect.

 

It's our duty to correct those owners that incorrectly refer to their semiauto black Rifles as assault rifles otherwise the media and the genpop has no clue.

It's not owners, it's dealers. Search around and you will find more than one using the term to sellthat style of firearm. The problem was brought on by the users and dealers as much as the press.

Hows that for timing. This is what I was eluding to:

 

D.C. delegate calls for ban on guns near Obama

 

 

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/d.c ... 08-19.html

All of the stories on the folks legally carrying guns to the rallies were designed to repulse the public on gun carry. Proof is given by MSNBC shielding the fact that the black man carrying the rifle was not identified as black- his race was deliberately hidden. The use of the assault weapon word was deliberately used to further enhance the story to link something negative with legal carry. This is all measured speak deliberately designed to present a negative view on legal carry. Even those here have commented that perhaps they should not have legally carried weapons to the rally so the media's tactics certainly worked on even some pro gun folks on this forum... imagine what the folks not familiar with guns and the gun culture felt. This is no reason to give up the rights given by the founders through the Second Amendment. The aim of the current government, regardless of what Obama has said-- is to rid the United States citizens of their guns. I do not agree that those who carried play into the hands of their opponents. It is positive for the public to see that you can legally carry and not have any one get shot. Only criminals use guns in the act of a crime and it is important for us to separate ourselves from criminals.

But the Brady Campaign, a gun control group, said that these increasing instances of brandishing firearms in public could lead to escalated scenarios in the future that put the president at risk because it stretches law enforcement thin.

 

 

I am impressed with the scope and well thought out, impassioned responses by the members of this forum. Over the years I have seen a huge swing in the mind set of the of gun sellers (except for perhaps Ramsey Outdoors who still furrow a brow when you ask to see a hand gun) they actually want to sell you a gun! Police were reluctant to give you permits to buy a weapon. Which only makes sense, why would they want to give you something that could possibly hurt them? Now, they accept it and are usually pretty good about it. Jersey City, Newark, Trenton, Camden may be some exceptions for the reasons stated above. So things ARE getting better towards gun owner mindset.

 

After listening to MSNBC, CNN, etc., there was no mention that these men were not close to the president.

 

My only real concern was not the pros and cons of 2nd amendment rights, but simple premise. Is it a good idea to (in my opinion) to carry a gun while being surrounded by FBI and Secret Service people who may mistake a simple gesture of perhaps unconsciously resting his hand on the gun butt to be construed as a hostile gesture and be killed for an innocent action. Or worse yet, having a tragedy occur because someone with a sinister agenda decided to draw down on our president to gain his 15 minutes of fame, thereby setting back the progress that has taken place since the 1968 GCA. All the while Sarah Brady is smugly saying hey don

Hows that for timing. This is what I was eluding to:

 

D.C. delegate calls for ban on guns near Obama

 

 

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/d.c ... 08-19.html

 

 

Well, that will ensure Obama-lama-ding-dong will NEVER Show up for Police Week..of course we'll be stuck with Eric "Hey Puerto-Rican Terrorists aint so bad" Holder every year..or MAYBE Biden...he might actually be good for some amusement as he stomps on his pee-pee in front of everyone..not that humor is something we really need at that Ceremony.