Protesters Carrying Rifle Outside Obama Rally

[RetiredGySgt]

I heard a guy on the radio today say, if me as a black man came to a Bush speech with 6 of my black friends...armed in Arizona, I wonder what would have happened.

It is an interesting question. Black GUYS armed at a Bush speech.

Nothing would have happened if they were in the appropriate area as these people were. Pretty simple concept. What I want to know is what would have happened if the KKK had taken clubs and "guarded" polling booths like the Black Panthers did, would they have been left alone and the Government dropped the case of intimidation against them?

 

[Emma]

There was only one in arizona?

Dozen Armed With Guns Protest Obama Speech
About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the Phoenix convention center where President Obama was giving a speech.

Dozen Armed With Guns Protest Obama Speech - Political News - FOXNews.com

Way to fact check..

PHOENIX -- About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday -- the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

I was gonna say...

yeah, i know, i made a mistake
it happens rarely

i was refering to the "one with military" and forgot the other
my bad

Were you thinking of the one who was interviewed?

 

[Navy1960]

Arizona gun laws are found mostly in Title 13, Chapter 31 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.[6] There is no registration or licensing of non-NFA firearms in Arizona. In fact, Section 13-3108 subsection B prohibits any political subdivision of the state from enacting any laws requiring licensing or registration.[7] According to state law, a person must be 18 years of age to purchase any non-NFA firearm from any source; however, there is a federal age limit of 21 years on handgun purchases from federal firearms licensees. Generally, a person must be 18 years of age to possess a firearm or carry one openly, with such exceptions as are described below.
Gun laws in the United States (by state) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have in our state for as long as I have lived here been able to carry a firearm openly as long as it meets state requirements. While these people IMO did not exercise the best judgement in bringing these weapons near the President of the United States they were according to state law weel within their rights to do so. This issue is more one of people not exercising good judgement when it comes to being near the President with firearms, I say this not because it represents a danger to the life of the President because if it had these people would be in the Maricopa County Jail courtsey of the Secret Service. It represents a danger to the lives of the people who made the choice to actually exercise their rights to carry there firearms into that situation in the first place, in other words they were putting their heads in the cross hairs of a Sniper. So while these people were not breaking any laws they were perhaps not using the good sense that god gave them in this case to leave those weapons home for their own safety.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Let me make this clear:

These people carry weapons were breaking the law.

Once again - the constitution states that people have the right to PEACEFUL assembly. Carry weapons to a political rally constitutes an armed mob that is a clear threat to the peace. They ARE NOT PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLING.

They are also infringing on the rights of everyone else who wants to assemble peacefully - because any intelligent person should construe that armed persons at a demonstration are armed for the purpose of non-peaceful actions and constitute a very real threat to the peace. Thereby violating everyone elses right to peaceful assembly.

Straight up LIE. There is NO LAW in that State that makes being in public in PUBLIC areas, a crime while carrying a weapon openly. NONE. NOR is there ANY Federal Law outlawing it. NONE, not even one law. Funny how in our early days people went to "Peaceful" assemblies armed all the time. Now all of a sudden DUMB ***** like you claim they are breaking a law that does not EXIST.

Once again stupid shit, the Secret Service has stated these people are ZERO threat, that they do not impact the security of the President in any way.

Remind us again how the simple presence of a weapon constitutes a threat, then why are police openly armed, the Secret Service, the marshal's service, the FBI? If as you claim the mere presence of a firearm is intimidation and makes a gathering unpeaceful, then why are Government personnel allowed to openly be armed in PUBLIC?

Provide for us any one in those crowds that was threatened or intimidated? YOU are part of the problem.

 

[DiveCon]

I was gonna say...

yeah, i know, i made a mistake
it happens rarely

i was refering to the "one with military" and forgot the other
my bad

Were you thinking of the one who was interviewed?

yes
the one with the so called "assault rifle"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Arizona gun laws are found mostly in Title 13, Chapter 31 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.[6] There is no registration or licensing of non-NFA firearms in Arizona. In fact, Section 13-3108 subsection B prohibits any political subdivision of the state from enacting any laws requiring licensing or registration.[7] According to state law, a person must be 18 years of age to purchase any non-NFA firearm from any source; however, there is a federal age limit of 21 years on handgun purchases from federal firearms licensees. Generally, a person must be 18 years of age to possess a firearm or carry one openly, with such exceptions as are described below.
Gun laws in the United States (by state) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have in our state for as long as I have lived here been able to carry a firearm openly as long as it meets state requirements. While these people IMO did not exercise the best judgement in bringing these weapons near the President of the United States they were according to state law weel within their rights to do so. This issue is more one of people not exercising good judgement when it comes to being near the President with firearms, I say this not because it represents a danger to the life of the President because if it had these people would be in the Maricopa County Jail courtsey of the Secret Service. It represents a danger to the lives of the people who made the choice to actually exercise their rights to carry there firearms into that situation in the first place, in other words they were putting their heads in the cross hairs of a Sniper. So while these people were not breaking any laws they were perhaps not using the good sense that god gave them in this case to leave those weapons home for their own safety.

Ya cause after all we should only exercise our rights when it is convenient for the Government right?

 

[Zona]

Let me make this clear:

These people carry weapons were breaking the law.

Once again - the constitution states that people have the right to PEACEFUL assembly. Carry weapons to a political rally constitutes an armed mob that is a clear threat to the peace. They ARE NOT PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLING.

They are also infringing on the rights of everyone else who wants to assemble peacefully - because any intelligent person should construe that armed persons at a demonstration are armed for the purpose of non-peaceful actions and constitute a very real threat to the peace. Thereby violating everyone elses right to peaceful assembly.

Straight up LIE. There is NO LAW in that State that makes being in public in PUBLIC areas, a crime while carrying a weapon openly. NONE. NOR is there ANY Federal Law outlawing it. NONE, not even one law. Funny how in our early days people went to "Peaceful" assemblies armed all the time. Now all of a sudden DUMB ***** like you claim they are breaking a law that does not EXIST.

Once again stupid shit, the Secret Service has stated these people are ZERO threat, that they do not impact the security of the President in any way.

Remind us again how the simple presence of a weapon constitutes a threat, then why are police openly armed, the Secret Service, the marshal's service, the FBI? If as you claim the mere presence of a firearm is intimidation and makes a gathering unpeaceful, then why are Government personnel allowed to openly be armed in PUBLIC?

Provide for us any one in those crowds that was threatened or intimidated? YOU are part of the problem.

Gunny, this all ends if the secret service decides to put up parameters for carrying guns near the president.

If they decide to stop them at point A (say two miles close to the president) then its not a second amendment issue, its against the law, plain and simple, agree?

Oh and what was your MOS...? Just curious. Nice to meet you, fellow vet.

 

[Navy1960]

Arizona gun laws are found mostly in Title 13, Chapter 31 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.[6] There is no registration or licensing of non-NFA firearms in Arizona. In fact, Section 13-3108 subsection B prohibits any political subdivision of the state from enacting any laws requiring licensing or registration.[7] According to state law, a person must be 18 years of age to purchase any non-NFA firearm from any source; however, there is a federal age limit of 21 years on handgun purchases from federal firearms licensees. Generally, a person must be 18 years of age to possess a firearm or carry one openly, with such exceptions as are described below.
Gun laws in the United States (by state) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have in our state for as long as I have lived here been able to carry a firearm openly as long as it meets state requirements. While these people IMO did not exercise the best judgement in bringing these weapons near the President of the United States they were according to state law weel within their rights to do so. This issue is more one of people not exercising good judgement when it comes to being near the President with firearms, I say this not because it represents a danger to the life of the President because if it had these people would be in the Maricopa County Jail courtsey of the Secret Service. It represents a danger to the lives of the people who made the choice to actually exercise their rights to carry there firearms into that situation in the first place, in other words they were putting their heads in the cross hairs of a Sniper. So while these people were not breaking any laws they were perhaps not using the good sense that god gave them in this case to leave those weapons home for their own safety.

Ya cause after all we should only exercise our rights when it is convenient for the Government right?

Not what I'm saying Gunny, they can exercise their rights anytime and it's clear crystal clear that they were NOT breaking any laws and further were exercising their rights to do so. However, what I did say was when they are near the President, the only lives that are in danger when they do something such as you saw yesterday were their own. Also, had they been a threat , rights or not I'm sure the Secret Service would have seen to it that they would not have posed a threat. So in the end this issue is one of people IMO that perhaps did not exercise good judgement on their behalf. As for it being illegal, or anythig of that nature, well that's complete nonsense.

 

[DiveCon]

Let me make this clear:

These people carry weapons were breaking the law.

Once again - the constitution states that people have the right to PEACEFUL assembly. Carry weapons to a political rally constitutes an armed mob that is a clear threat to the peace. They ARE NOT PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLING.

They are also infringing on the rights of everyone else who wants to assemble peacefully - because any intelligent person should construe that armed persons at a demonstration are armed for the purpose of non-peaceful actions and constitute a very real threat to the peace. Thereby violating everyone elses right to peaceful assembly.

Straight up LIE. There is NO LAW in that State that makes being in public in PUBLIC areas, a crime while carrying a weapon openly. NONE. NOR is there ANY Federal Law outlawing it. NONE, not even one law. Funny how in our early days people went to "Peaceful" assemblies armed all the time. Now all of a sudden DUMB ***** like you claim they are breaking a law that does not EXIST.

Once again stupid shit, the Secret Service has stated these people are ZERO threat, that they do not impact the security of the President in any way.

Remind us again how the simple presence of a weapon constitutes a threat, then why are police openly armed, the Secret Service, the marshal's service, the FBI? If as you claim the mere presence of a firearm is intimidation and makes a gathering unpeaceful, then why are Government personnel allowed to openly be armed in PUBLIC?

Provide for us any one in those crowds that was threatened or intimidated? YOU are part of the problem.

Gunny, this all ends if the secret service decides to put up parameters for carrying guns near the president.

If they decide to stop them at point A (say two miles close to the president) then its not a second amendment issue, its against the law, plain and simple, agree?

Oh and what was your MOS...? Just curious. Nice to meet you, fellow vet.

uh, from the sounds of the story, they already did, cause these guys were in THAT zone

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Your position boils down to treat people like criminals before they actually do something, because someone might come down with a bad case of the stuck on stupid, and someone may get hurt. That doesn't strike you as nanny state? Did your parents ever rule you as guilty ahead of time, even though you hadn't actually done anything wrong? If so, did that make you mad?

They didn't do anything wrong. Did some of them feed the stereotype that so many have about people with guns? They may have. I don't know as I was not there. Either way, take action if one of them breaks the law.

I think a lot of people have gotten so used to the government enemas, that when they see some of their fellow Americans expressing their rights in a legal manner, even if it may be unpopular, a lot of people get fearful and start coming down on the law-abiding gun toters, instead of the government that has been crawling up everyone's butt.

I don't think I have ever said they were criminals or that anything they were doing was illegal. Stupid... yes. A threat... yes, but never did I say what they were doing was illegal. I have said that what they were doing was wrong and bad for America.

As for my parents ruling me guilty ahead of time, let me go one better than that. I have been accused of a crime that I did not commit by the State of California. Let me also tell you, that the motto that we all live by, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in the state's mind.

In this case these gunmen are not breaking the law. They even have the legal right to be there, but just because I have the legal right to do something does not mean that I should do it. These gunmen are attempting to send a message to the government and threaten the President. I'm sorry, but that is not what I think Americans should be doing. Seems more to me like what would be done in the Middle East.

Have we sunk that far? Are we becoming the barbarians whom we are at war with?

Immie

I think you are making some leaps you shouldn't Immie. And yes, sometimes I don't believe we should do certain things, even if those things may be legal. I agree with you there. I don't see this story as one of those times though.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Straight up LIE. There is NO LAW in that State that makes being in public in PUBLIC areas, a crime while carrying a weapon openly. NONE. NOR is there ANY Federal Law outlawing it. NONE, not even one law. Funny how in our early days people went to "Peaceful" assemblies armed all the time. Now all of a sudden DUMB ***** like you claim they are breaking a law that does not EXIST.

Once again stupid shit, the Secret Service has stated these people are ZERO threat, that they do not impact the security of the President in any way.

Remind us again how the simple presence of a weapon constitutes a threat, then why are police openly armed, the Secret Service, the marshal's service, the FBI? If as you claim the mere presence of a firearm is intimidation and makes a gathering unpeaceful, then why are Government personnel allowed to openly be armed in PUBLIC?

Provide for us any one in those crowds that was threatened or intimidated? YOU are part of the problem.

Gunny, this all ends if the secret service decides to put up parameters for carrying guns near the president.

If they decide to stop them at point A (say two miles close to the president) then its not a second amendment issue, its against the law, plain and simple, agree?

Oh and what was your MOS...? Just curious. Nice to meet you, fellow vet.

uh, from the sounds of the story, they already did, cause these guys were in THAT zone

Don't bother with facts he is incapable of understanding them as is Navy1960 as well. Next we will hear how where ever the President drives the cops and the Secret Service are free to arrest and disarm law abiding citizens for simply being on that street. You know when the Citizenry doesn't even know where he will be driving till he does.

 

[Immanuel]

My state is open-carry, and has complete state pre-emption of all gun laws.

Believe me, I have no problem with open-carry. I simply don't think it is appropriate to carry weapons in this manner at a political event and especially not around the President of the United States. Despite what those with whom I usually agree have stated here, the message is a clear threat not only to the President but also to peace and to the nation that I love.

Are there times when revolt is appropriate? Yes. Is that time now? Maybe.

But carrying those weapons around like chicken shit thugs trying to intimidate people who voice an opinion different than your own is not the responsible thing to do.

Immie

Ya right, remind us who was intimidated? The only intimidation going on is by the left and Main Stream news trying to paint the lawful carrying of weapons as some kind of threat. Once again retard, the Secret Service, which is task with the Presidents protection has stated these people are NO THREAT AT ALL, they do not even impact the security or procedures the Secret Service employ.

Remind us again how you are opposed to large Union thugs and club wielding black panthers from intimidating people at polling booths and town hall meetings.

When have I ever supported the club wielding black panthers. I was as upset at them as everyone else and I despise the unions, well, at least today's version of the unions.

As for the Secret Service saying there was no threat? Yeah, well, just another set of government officials lying out of their asses.

And if you think those pricks weren't there to intimidate their opponents your IQ is below Sillybobo's

Immie

 

[DiveCon]

Gunny, this all ends if the secret service decides to put up parameters for carrying guns near the president.

If they decide to stop them at point A (say two miles close to the president) then its not a second amendment issue, its against the law, plain and simple, agree?

Oh and what was your MOS...? Just curious. Nice to meet you, fellow vet.

uh, from the sounds of the story, they already did, cause these guys were in THAT zone

Don't bother with facts he is incapable of understanding them as is Navy1960 as well. Next we will hear how where ever the President drives the cops and the Secret Service are free to arrest and disarm law abiding citizens for simply being on that street. You know when the Citizenry doesn't even know where he will be driving till he does.

navy is a good guy
maybe he hasnt seen that one guy had already talked to the police and they were in an area where it was allowed

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest - Yahoo! News

I am no fan of the President, but this is disturbing to me. The message is clear and quite frankly, I think inappropriate. Not to mention just plain stupid. Notice that at least one of the guys wouldn't identify himself.

Immie

The lunatic fringe of the right wing is getting more and more extreme...fed by the ravings of Beck, Hannity, and FoxNews

Sooner or later there will be violence.

In about 150 years and with a lot of good hard efforts maybe this so called lunatic fringe of the right wing will catch up with the lunatics on the left.



I typically find myself agreeing with your posts, but not this time. See my reply to Diamond Dave.

Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest - Yahoo! News

I am no fan of the President, but this is disturbing to me. The message is clear and quite frankly, I think inappropriate. Not to mention just plain stupid. Notice that at least one of the guys wouldn't identify himself.

Immie

Disturbing when a law abiding citizen carries a weapon, without malicious intent of any harm??? PUH-LEASE

Yet another liberal sensationalized story, making mountains out of molehills

Dave, I also typically find myself agreeing with you, but again not this time.

Yes, they have the legal right to bare those arms. My problem is the message they are silently speaking. It is a clear threat to the President. They are saying that they have every intention of using those arms against him if the need be. And what is most disturbing to me is that soon one of these lunatics might just try it and then who will get hurt?

Immie

Every US citizen has the right to use their weapons against ANYONE 'if the need be...' where that 'need be' that such a person threatens their life or the life of others in their immediate presence.

What would an exception to this rightful and just rule look like?

Can you explain this?

 

[Immanuel]

Every US citizen has the right to use their weapons against ANYONE 'if the need be...' where that 'need be' a result that such a person threatens their life or the life of others in their immediate presence.

What would an exception to this rightful and just rule look like?

Can you explain this?

How is carrying weapons with the intent of intimidating your opponents and silencing them protecting their lives or the lives of others in their immediate presence? That is not what these people were attempting to do. They were attempting to interfere with the free speech rights of others who happened to disagree with them. They were trying to bully others who happened to disagree with them and they were in fact putting the lives of everyone around them in danger.

This is no exception to the rule that you mentioned. This was not for their own protection. It was used as a tool to intimidate people that support the President's attempt to force this piece of shit legislation down our throats. Whether or not I agree with the side that these people are taking (and if they are opponents of the bill I do agree) I believe that it is wrong to interfere with the rights of their opponents and someone standing near me with a rifle collaborating with people that are demonstrating against what I believe are definitely going to intimidate me and make me think twice about speaking out.

navy is a good guy
maybe he hasnt seen that one guy had already talked to the police and they were in an area where it was allowed

DC,

I don't think that the fact that this person had talked to the police makes a damned bit of difference. He is still intimidating to the crowd. He is still a threat and he is still making an implied threat to the government. That is what they were there for and anyone who claims otherwise, well, I'm sorry to say I believe is either a liar or an idiot.

Immie

 

[Navy1960]

(1) Under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, officers and agents of the Secret Service are authorized to -

(C) make arrests without warrant for any offense against the
United States committed in their presence, or for any felony
cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have
reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed or is committing such felony;

Secret Service Protection Law - U.S. Government Info/Resources

As I said BEFORE if the Secret Service had reason to believe these people had broken any laws they would have been arrested. The fact they were carrying weapons DID NOT break any laws!! If this is too contrary to the facts as some would like to think I am not aware of as I happen to carry a weapon in this state then they of course have a right to disagree. What I did say though is that these people having exercised that right did so at their own peril and this issue has nothing at all to do with people a not being allowed to carry weapons near the President , which they clearly are in this state. If they had represented a danger then as I stated in my posting above then they would have been arrested and the Secret Service would not have needed a warrant to do so, that is a fact. While some may not agree with me that these people are not exercising good judgment in doing so near the President , then so be it, it does not mean I disagree with their rights to carry those weapons. That is a personal assesment.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Every US citizen has the right to use their weapons against ANYONE 'if the need be...' where that 'need be' a result that such a person threatens their life or the life of others in their immediate presence.

What would an exception to this rightful and just rule look like?

Can you explain this?

How is carrying weapons with the intent of intimidating your opponents and silencing them protecting their lives or the lives of others in their immediate presence? That is not what these people were attempting to do. They were attempting to interfere with the free speech rights of others who happened to disagree with them. They were trying to bully others who happened to disagree with them and they were in fact putting the lives of everyone around them in danger.

This is no exception to the rule that you mentioned. This was not for their own protection. It was used as a tool to intimidate people that support the President's attempt to force this piece of shit legislation down our throats. Whether or not I agree with the side that these people are taking (and if they are opponents of the bill I do agree) I believe that it is wrong to interfere with the rights of their opponents and someone standing near me with a rifle collaborating with people that are demonstrating against what I believe are definitely going to intimidate me and make me think twice about speaking out.

navy is a good guy
maybe he hasnt seen that one guy had already talked to the police and they were in an area where it was allowed

DC,

I don't think that the fact that this person had talked to the police makes a damned bit of difference. He is still intimidating to the crowd. He is still a threat and he is still making an implied threat to the government. That is what they were there for and anyone who claims otherwise, well, I'm sorry to say I believe is either a liar or an idiot.

Immie

Im sorry but while I only wanted to respond to one aspect of your post I am forced by the RULES to quote the entirety of your post and I was forced to report you for having altered these TWO posts... by the same RULE!

How does carrying a fire arm intimidate a political opponent, if that opponent intends you no malice?

All the firearms say is: 'if you threaten my life, or those around me, I'll kill ya.'

Now I can see where if the opposition's goal is intimidation that the firearms would tend to roll that back. But that's what they're designed to do...

Is it your position that the President was there to initimidate them?

 

[Navy1960]

uh, from the sounds of the story, they already did, cause these guys were in THAT zone

Don't bother with facts he is incapable of understanding them as is Navy1960 as well. Next we will hear how where ever the President drives the cops and the Secret Service are free to arrest and disarm law abiding citizens for simply being on that street. You know when the Citizenry doesn't even know where he will be driving till he does.

navy is a good guy
maybe he hasnt seen that one guy had already talked to the police and they were in an area where it was allowed

Well Dive I had not seen that , but you know still in Arizona no matter where they are they can carry these weapons in the open as long as they meet state law. That is perhaps whey the Secret Service has no issue with it. Still though is why I had said, thay these people in carrying these weapons by doing so were not putting anyones life in danger but themselves. So all this hype over this issue is nothing but nonsense. The Secret Service would have had thse people in Joe's Motel had they thought for a moment they represented or thought they were about to commit a crime against the President. Again, while some may think that carrying weapons anywhere is fine, and I respect their opinion, my opinion is that some places carrying a weapon may not be appropriate i.e. to a Presidential rally, or my daughters college graduation. It's a matter of opinion on that one.

 

[dilloduck]

If they had wanted to intimidate him they would have carried a noose.

 

[Zona]

Don't bother with facts he is incapable of understanding them as is Navy1960 as well. Next we will hear how where ever the President drives the cops and the Secret Service are free to arrest and disarm law abiding citizens for simply being on that street. You know when the Citizenry doesn't even know where he will be driving till he does.

navy is a good guy
maybe he hasnt seen that one guy had already talked to the police and they were in an area where it was allowed

Well Dive I had not seen that , but you know still in Arizona no matter where they are they can carry these weapons in the open as long as they meet state law. That is perhaps whey the Secret Service has no issue with it. Still though is why I had said, thay these people in carrying these weapons by doing so were not putting anyones life in danger but themselves. So all this hype over this issue is nothing but nonsense. The Secret Service would have had thse people in Joe's Motel had they thought for a moment they represented or thought they were about to commit a crime against the President. Again, while some may think that carrying weapons anywhere is fine, and I respect their opinion, my opinion is that some places carrying a weapon may not be appropriate i.e. to a Presidential rally, or my daughters college graduation. It's a matter of opinion on that one.

Great post..Oh and I see you know about Sheriff Joe..