Guy shows up at Obama meeting with a gun

bobbyjoe

Crazy that you can be let near the President with a gun out in the open.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4

tlev

That interviewer is a jackass

Manic Moran

It's New Hampshire. The State Motto is "Live Free or Die". They take their individual liberties very seriously.

Eleanor Kjellman, who transplanted herself from California and then got into the State legislature, tried to propose a motion to prohibit people from carrying firearms into the NH State Capitol buildings. Serious misjudgement given that she seemed to think that urban New Hampshirites had the same view on firearms as urban Californians. Many people with sidearms showed up to the hearing.

Final result was that the proposal was overwhelmingly defeated, and she was also subsequently turfed out in the following election, when her own party (Democrats) refused to put her forward as a candidate to retain her seat.

On a related note, some chap who was wearing a sidearm in the vicinity of an Obama election rally during the campaign season in Pennsylvania was finally brought to trial last month. Judge turfed out all the charges, saying that he was doing nothing illegal. PA also has a very strong right to bear arms in its Constitution.

NTM

knoxor

Does the right to bear arms include any arms?

Could you walk down the street with a rocket launcher on your shoulder?

Is there also some law that its illegal to have a concealed weapon on your person?

jhegarty

knoxor wrote: »

Does the right to bear arms include any arms?

Could you walk down the street with a rocket launcher on your shoulder?

Is there also some law that its illegal to have a concealed weapon on your person?

Depends on the state.

tlev

I don't know if I agree with the part where he said if everyone had guns I'd would be even safer...

Manic Moran

knoxor wrote: »

Does the right to bear arms include any arms?

Could you walk down the street with a rocket launcher on your shoulder?

That remains to be seen, it hasn't yet been determined in court if the right goes to the extent of a rocket launcher. I don't think it will, at least on the Federal level. (State courts may have their own opinions). However, something not being a 'right' does not automatically prohibit it (eg there is no 'right' to a driver's license). Owning fully functional tanks, artillery pieces and rocket launchers is legal in the US with the appropriate permit from the ATF. I have driven down the public road in a privately owned tank which had fully functional weapons. However, it is also decidedly expensive. Due to the $200 tax per explosive round, most owners of such pieces only fire solid shot armour piercing.

Is there also some law that its illegal to have a concealed weapon on your person?

Only two States have a complete prohibition on concealed weapons. (Illinois and Wisconscin, if I recall). Others have limitations or varying degrees of permitting process. I would need to check, but I don't believe either state has a complete ban on openly wearing or carrying a firearm. Some states allow both (eg New Hampshire), some allow concealed and and ban unconcealed (eg Texas), others tend to prefer open and ban concealed (Wisconsin).

NTM

Nodin

America...ye have to love it betimes....

Kama

Don't ya? Last visit I had the humorous situation of my freinds explaining that the dumdum rounds he kept in his car were 'in case of the zombie apocalypse'.

Better safe than sorry, i guess?

Overheal

In South Carolina its manditory to bring your sidearm to church.

/shrug

I'd take that over the situation in Dublin any day.

tlev

Could you imagine if more people got guns here....

CJhaughey

tlev wrote: »

Could you imagine if more people got guns here....

What would happen?
Given that the current laws are amongst the most restrictive in the EU (along with the UK) and the criminals still use firearms with impunity here and in the UK I don't see much changing.
The Dail has just passed a law making fullbore handguns restricted, does this make anyone safer from Criminals that don't bother getting licenses and gunsafes?
The guys shooting each other are not applying at the Garda station for licenses:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

Last visit I had the humorous situation of my freinds explaining that the dumdum rounds he kept in his car were 'in case of the zombie apocalypse'.

Nothing humourous about it. When the zombies are after you, you'll find such preparations to be very handy. You will note that there is a zombie survival sub-forum on Boards. The correct weapon varies by opinion, but shotguns are a very common choice.





Still, there are some purists.

Overheal wrote: »

In South Carolina its manditory to bring your sidearm to church.

Is that still the law? Cool.

Again, preparation is everything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings

NTM

Nodin

CJhaughey wrote: »

What would happen?
Given that the current laws are amongst the most restrictive in the EU (along with the UK) and the criminals still use firearms with impunity here and in the UK I don't see much changing.
The Dail has just passed a law making fullbore handguns restricted, does this make anyone safer from Criminals that don't bother getting licenses and gunsafes?
The guys shooting each other are not applying at the Garda station for licenses:rolleyes:

Yep, greatest crock of shite of all time. Anyhoo, must control self and not get ranting.

Kama

The Dail has just passed a law making fullbore handguns restricted, does this make anyone safer from Criminals that don't bother getting licenses and gunsafes?

Your odds of getting shot are lower, yeah. I'm ambivalent on gun control; I like guns, I'm a not-completely-crap shot, and I think it's a valuable skill, but making them commonly available does seem to result in more people getting shot.

And proper zombie preparedness involves good co-ordination and organization, swarm control, and producing an effective kill terrain. Ammo runs out, good planning doesn't have to

Nodin

Kama wrote: »

Your odds of getting shot are lower, yeah. I'm ambivalent on gun control; I like guns, I'm a not-completely-crap shot, and I think it's a valuable skill, but making them commonly available does seem to result in more people getting shot.

Not in most of Europe. You get the odd incident, but thats the price of personal freedom, really.

Overheal

Nodin wrote: »

Not in most of Europe. You get the odd incident, but thats the price of personal freedom, really.

The Odd Incident?

America has a bad habit of media sensationalism, but dont let it distract you - it happens everywhere. And frequently.

jonsnow

Kama wrote: »

Don't ya? Last visit I had the humorous situation of my freinds explaining that the dumdum rounds he kept in his car were 'in case of the zombie apocalypse'.

Better safe than sorry, i guess?

The liberal elite in europe like to scoff at what they view as archaic and "crazy" american gun control laws.But they won,t be laughing so hard when the zombies are chewing on their smug know-it-all brains

jank

Overheal wrote: »

The Odd Incident?

America has a bad habit of media sensationalism, but dont let it distract you - it happens everywhere. And frequently.

And much much much more frequently in the states. The odds of being shot there is a hell of a lot more than canada or western europe, but less than say South africa or Columbia.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's New Hampshire. The State Motto is "Live Free or Die". They take their individual liberties very seriously.

I'm sure that if they were still alive, Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy would agree to allowing their common citizens in close proximity to their presidents with firearms.

unwyse

And???

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I'm sure that if they were still alive, Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy would agree to allowing their common citizens in close proximity to their presidents with firearms.

That's why Americans generally are not allowed to get close to the President with a firearm any more. Ever try going to see one? Metal detectors all over the place. Even when it's an open area. Heck, we had to go through metal detectors which were set up on Nassau Street when we went to see Clinton at College Green. El Presidente was at no risk from a guy with a sidearm on the public street because he was not out in public. Next time 'The Beast' is on the TV, check out the thickness of the door. People openly wearing sidearms in NH is a non-issue. People making a big deal of it are generally people who don't live in NH.

NTM

Nodin

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I'm sure that if they were still alive, Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy would agree to allowing their common citizens in close proximity to their presidents with firearms.

Actually nobody knew they had them as they were all concealed until use, if I recall.

Considering the amount of counter-sniper teams employed around any presidential 'event', not to mention various agents and uniformed personnell I'd be very suprised if there'd be but one hole in the gentleman had he appeared to be a threat.

Manic Moran

Well, it seems that idea's beginning to spread. A number of chaps showed up near an Obama address in Arizona carrying sidearms, one chap had a rifle.

Those damned trailer-trash rednecks...


NTM

bobbyjoe

Just because people have the right to do something doesn't mean it has to be done. Taking a gun into a heated situation is not a good idea. It has the added affect of intimidating the opposition. If loads of these guys start turning up then meetings will have to be cancelled not very good for democracy.

Manic Moran

It's also a statement in itself. The Democratic Party's Website, (And I believe the White House Website) still maintains it is the policy of the Administration to ban firearms such as the Corbon-15 carried in this instance. Womens lib people waved bras around as a symbol of their movement. Anti-war protestors burned US flags as a symbol of theirs. Every movement has a symbol which is brought to a rally to represent their cause. What better symbol to demonstrate a preference for the retained legality of a rifle than to bring it along to a political function hosted by the politician in question?

NTM

bobbyjoe

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's also a statement in itself. The Democratic Party's Website, (And I believe the White House Website) still maintains it is the policy of the Administration to ban firearms such as the Corbon-15 carried in this instance. Womens lib people waved bras around as a symbol of their movement. Anti-war protestors burned US flags as a symbol of theirs. Every movement has a symbol which is brought to a rally to represent their cause. What better symbol to demonstrate a preference for the retained legality of a rifle than to bring it along to a political function hosted by the politician in question?

NTM

Bra's and flags don't kill people. Gun ownership should include responsibility, they are not appropriate in some places.

worldrepublic

This is an extreme example/scenario -but it is the only way to get the message across given the absurdity and restrictiveness of political-correctness:

If German citizens living c. the inter-war period had the right to bear arms, would the Nazis had succeeded in taking over their country, and then Europe?

The whole point of the right to bear arms is not protection from fellow citizens, but from corrupt government, no matter how politically correct it purports to be. Maybe, just maybe, the Jews would have been better off if they had the right to bear arms, along with every other German citizen. Remember its the people, not political ideologies, and not government, that forms the foundation of civilisation.

Manic Moran

Gun ownership should include responsibility

I fully agree. Did he do anything in any way irresponsible with his rifle? Did he fail to abide by any of the fundamental rules of firearm safety? Did he point it at anyone he wasn't prepared to destroy or kill? Did he take the safety off? (Assuming the hammer was back). Did he place his finger on the trigger at any stage? Did he do anything whatsoever which was even remotely dangerous?

they are not appropriate in some places.

Like where? Not a flippant question, the decision on 'where a firearm is appropriate' varies from place to place. I mean, would you bring an assault rifle to a funfair filled with 12-16 year olds? No? It's a government-sponsored national event in Switzerland. (Guns and ferris wheels, interesting combination). Ever since the Black Panthers showed up in the Capitol Buildings in Sacramento with guns and scared the California Legislature, it's been 'inappropriate' (Actually, illegal) to bring them in. In New Hampshire, the mere suggestion that it is 'inappropriate' will (and has) result(ed) in a very strong pushback.

So here's a different question for you: Is it the presence of the firearm that concerns you, or the presence of a visible firearm that concerns you? 48 States in the Union permit people to carry a hidden firearm. If you've ever gone on holiday in the US, as long as you didn't say exclusively in Wisconsin or Illinois, there was a fair chance that the person sitting opposite you in McDonald's while all the kids tucked into their Happy Meals was packing a .45 Colt (or clone, very popular choice). Appropriate?

NTM

norbert64

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's also a statement in itself. The Democratic Party's Website, (And I believe the White House Website) still maintains it is the policy of the Administration to ban firearms such as the Corbon-15 carried in this instance. Womens lib people waved bras around as a symbol of their movement. Anti-war protestors burned US flags as a symbol of theirs. Every movement has a symbol which is brought to a rally to represent their cause. What better symbol to demonstrate a preference for the retained legality of a rifle than to bring it along to a political function hosted by the politician in question?

rather tenuous correlation TBH.
These are supposed to be healthcare townhalls after all.

Anywho, the truth is trickling out now about the gun guy in the pic. Things aren't looking good.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34475_The_Freaks_Behind_the_Arizona_Gun_Stunt

worldrepublic

norbert64 wrote: »

rather tenuous correlation TBH.
These are supposed to be healthcare townhalls after all.

Anywho, the truth is trickling out now about the gun guy in the pic. Things aren't looking good.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34475_The_Freaks_Behind_the_Arizona_Gun_Stunt

So why don't the police just round them up... and uh, arrest them? Last I checked they don't round up and arrest people based on a hit-piece article by "littlegreenfootballs" whatever that is.

Either way this debate is becoming irrelevant to the matter of Obama's falling popularity. The unemployment rate is in double digits -that's a real reason for his lack of popularity! You can't keep blaming the conspiracy theorists for everything -it is nothing more than a strategic diversion from the hard issues.

Manic Moran

norbert64 wrote: »

These are supposed to be healthcare townhalls after all.

What, I have to wait until a townhall is set up on firearms before protesting an administration's policy? What if none is ever scheduled? I don't recall many townhalls occuring before the 1986 or 1994 bans, when should one make an opinion heard?

Anywho, the truth is trickling out now about the gun guy in the pic. Things aren't looking good.

He's certainly a little on the Libertarian side, but nothing unlawful about that that I'm aware of.

NTM

Otacon

worldrepublic wrote: »

Either way this debate is becoming irrelevant to the matter of Obama's falling popularity. The unemployment rate is in double digits -that's a real reason for his lack of popularity! You can't keep blaming the conspiracy theorists for everything -it is nothing more than a strategic diversion from the hard issues.

When did this become a debate about Obama's popularity? This thread is titled "Guy shows up at Obama meeting with a gun", its about a f*cking moron who showed up to a meeting with his President with a gun. I don't know of any other civilised country where this would be accepted!

Overheal

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Just because people have the right to do something doesn't mean it has to be done.

I disagree somewhat, and I salute this man,

http://consumerist.com/5318667/walmart-enlists-help-of-local-police-officer-to-force-you-to-show-receipt

I explained my situation to [redacted], who didn't understand why I was wasting their time and my own for such a simple request. I let [redacted],, who claimed to be an 8 year veteran of the US Army, know that of all people he should understand the importance of standing up for one's rights regardless of how remedial or wasteful it might seem to do so.

For the longest time, and so many people still, they just have allowed Walmart to verify all receipts as you leave their stores. The problem is, if you disagree to the search, they do all sorts of illegal things, like kidnap your shopping cart. An exhaustive list can be found on these pages:

http://consumerist.com/tag/receipt-checking-controversy/

http://consumerist.com/search/walmart+receipt/bydate/?timerange=all



Furthermore, we're talking about something as central to American Foundations as our Right to Bear Arms. I applaud these guys exercising it.

Im not a crazy gun nazi - just a Constitutionalist

Manic Moran

its about a f*cking moron who showed up to a meeting with his President with a gun. I don't know of any other civilised country where this would be accepted!

I don't believe he was going to be meeting the President. If he were, he would generally not be permitted to be armed, so you can't count it as being accepted in the US either.

For the record, for the last ten minutes I've been bouncing around the website linked to 'in cache' by the littlegreenfootballs site, it's 'freedomsphoenix.com.' I've not noticed any odd or controversial advertisements, so far I've seen Hewlett Packard, an attorney's firm, online betting, a radio station, 'anti-war.com', a book, a financial planner, frankly, it seems pretty normal. On the front page it has an article about what they consider to be the best version of Linux. ("Mint", if you're curious).

Am I missing something?

NTM

bobbyjoe

Manic Moran wrote: »

I fully agree. Did he do anything in any way irresponsible with his rifle? Did he fail to abide by any of the fundamental rules of firearm safety? Did he point it at anyone he wasn't prepared to destroy or kill? Did he take the safety off? (Assuming the hammer was back). Did he place his finger on the trigger at any stage? Did he do anything whatsoever which was even remotely dangerous?



Like where? Not a flippant question, the decision on 'where a firearm is appropriate' varies from place to place. I mean, would you bring an assault rifle to a funfair filled with 12-16 year olds? No? It's a government-sponsored national event in Switzerland. (Guns and ferris wheels, interesting combination). Ever since the Black Panthers showed up in the Capitol Buildings in Sacramento with guns and scared the California Legislature, it's been 'inappropriate' (Actually, illegal) to bring them in. In New Hampshire, the mere suggestion that it is 'inappropriate' will (and has) result(ed) in a very strong pushback.

So here's a different question for you: Is it the presence of the firearm that concerns you, or the presence of a visible firearm that concerns you? 48 States in the Union permit people to carry a hidden firearm. If you've ever gone on holiday in the US, as long as you didn't say exclusively in Wisconsin or Illinois, there was a fair chance that the person sitting opposite you in McDonald's while all the kids tucked into their Happy Meals was packing a .45 Colt (or clone, very popular choice). Appropriate?

NTM

I'm no expert on guns so don't know if he was handling it or was it safe etc I assume it was and he knew what he was doing.

I think it is inappropriate because these townhall things are supposed to be places where people can meet their representatives talk argue protest etc. If guys like this start showing up armed it will intimidate others from expressing their opinions. You can't really argue with a guy with a gun.

Manic Moran

If guys like this start showing up armed it will intimidate others from expressing their opinions. You can't really argue with a guy with a gun

Sure you can. What's he going to do, shoot you with it? There are laws against that sort of thing.

And is there any indication that the people on the other side of the road decided that they should disperse? That they decided to be quiet and stop expressing support? Go home, perhaps?

Any photos or footage I've seen seems to indicate that there was no panic or dispersal, and that the supporters lines for the two sides remained in place.

NTM

28064212

worldrepublic wrote: »

This is an extreme example/scenario -but it is the only way to get the message across given the absurdity and restrictiveness of political-correctness:

If German citizens living c. the inter-war period had the right to bear arms, would the Nazis had succeeded in taking over their country, and then Europe?

The whole point of the right to bear arms is not protection from fellow citizens, but from corrupt government, no matter how politically correct it purports to be. Maybe, just maybe, the Jews would have been better off if they had the right to bear arms, along with every other German citizen. Remember its the people, not political ideologies, and not government, that forms the foundation of civilisation.

That's an insane analogy and requires a complete rewrite of history. You do realise Hitler was elected? If the citizens of Germany had been armed, then for every Jew that managed to successfully defend themselves, two would have been killed by their neighbours

Manic Moran

If the citizens of Germany had been armed, then for every Jew that managed to successfully defend themselves, two would have been killed by their neighbours

One-in-three odds of dying? I think I'd stay home that day instead of try to kill a jew.

NTM

bobbyjoe

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sure you can. What's he going to do, shoot you with it? There are laws against that sort of thing.

And is there any indication that the people on the other side of the road decided that they should disperse? That they decided to be quiet and stop expressing support? Go home, perhaps?

Any photos or footage I've seen seems to indicate that there was no panic or dispersal, and that the supporters lines for the two sides remained in place.

NTM

I wouldn't argue with a guy with a gun, a broken bottle or a baseball bat. Your chances of getting hurt are much higher than with an unarmed person.
Don't know if anyone was put off attending by him and neither do you. Still think its a stupid place to bring a gun.

LostinKildare

Oh, for the good ol' days (just two short years ago!) when just wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt in the president's general vicinity would get you arrested, handcuffed, and tossed into a police van!

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2007/08/20/couple-win-80000-for-bush-t-shirt-arrest/

worldrepublic

Otacon wrote: »

When did this become a debate about Obama's popularity? This thread is titled "Guy shows up at Obama meeting with a gun", its about a f*cking moron who showed up to a meeting with his President with a gun. I don't know of any other civilised country where this would be accepted!

I'll let you in on a little secret: there are NO civilised countries. When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation, he replied: I think it would be a good idea!

Anyway, attacks on the personality of this one man cannot form a basis for properly addressing the wider societal and legal issues. The fact is he is a law abiding citizen. I also note that representatives of Acorn (group promoting the policies of Obama) recently attacked an African-American man who was peacefully protesting against the healthcare policy. The Acorn members broke the law, but the police did nothing? There is a real dispute here: ordinary folks are not happy with basically losing everything -their pensions, their homes, their jobs.... and so they protest (freedom of speech/right of assembly allows for this). The far right would love to take credit for this, but, in fact, the protests are about very down to earth concerns, coming from average people all over the USA.

Maybe Obama should compromise on his policy? Remember Poll tax in the UK? The government has to rescind it in the end. Obama will have a much longer stay in office if he is reasonable, and, importantly, stops shirking off the growing public protest.

bobbyjoe

worldrepublic wrote: »

I'll let you in on a little secret: there are NO civilised countries. When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation, he replied: I think it would be a good idea!

Anyway, attacks on the personality of this one man cannot form a basis for properly addressing the wider societal and legal issues. The fact is he is a law abiding citizen. I also note that representatives of Acorn (group promoting the policies of Obama) recently attacked an African-American man who was peacefully protesting against the healthcare policy. The Acorn members broke the law, but the police did nothing? There is a real dispute here: ordinary folks are not happy with basically losing everything -their pensions, their homes, their jobs.... and so they protest (freedom of speech/right of assembly allows for this). The far right would love to take credit for this, but, in fact, the protests are about very down to earth concerns, coming from average people all over the USA.

Maybe Obama should compromise on his policy? Remember Poll tax in the UK? The government has to rescind it in the end. Obama will have a much longer stay in office if he is reasonable, and, importantly, stops shirking off the growing public protest.

What about the millions of people who want a public option, those who voted for Obama? Seems like a small vocal minority backed by vested interests can overthrow a popular proposal by bullying and threats.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

I'll let you in on a little secret: there are NO civilised countries. When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation, he replied: I think it would be a good idea!

Anyway, attacks on the personality of this one man cannot form a basis for properly addressing the wider societal and legal issues. The fact is he is a law abiding citizen. I also note that representatives of Acorn (group promoting the policies of Obama) recently attacked an African-American man who was peacefully protesting against the healthcare policy. The Acorn members broke the law, but the police did nothing? There is a real dispute here: ordinary folks are not happy with basically losing everything -their pensions, their homes, their jobs.... and so they protest (freedom of speech/right of assembly allows for this). The far right would love to take credit for this, but, in fact, the protests are about very down to earth concerns, coming from average people all over the USA.

Maybe Obama should compromise on his policy? Remember Poll tax in the UK? The government has to rescind it in the end. Obama will have a much longer stay in office if he is reasonable, and, importantly, stops shirking off the growing public protest.

Your posts have changed in tone quite quickly.....

norbert64

Thread about the gun guy here. Apparently he had no ammo in the steyr, but his handgun was indeed loaded.
http://www.arizonashooting.com/v3/viewtopic.php?p=595650

worldrepublic

bobbyjoe wrote: »

What about the millions of people who want a public option, those who voted for Obama? Seems like a small vocal minority backed by vested interests can overthrow a popular proposal by bullying and threats.

They are making anti-Obama t-shirts now. Retailing at $9.99 with a free "where's your birth certificate Obama?" bumper sticker. Bush didn't seem to care about unrest (did anyone bother to tell him?). God will you ever forget the footage of him holding the children's story book upside down, when the SS guy comes in to tell him "America is under attack, Sir!" Well, at least Obama is better at reading the tele-prompter!

worldrepublic

The media are now doing a u-turn and admitting that the protesters are just "ordinary folk" (versus right-wing nuts etc. etc.):

The disapproval ratings are pretty scary even Bush did better than this.

And this Telegraph article calls Obama "President Pantywaist":

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100006701/president-pantywaist-in-retreat-barack-obama-hoists-the-white-flag-over-stalinist-health-care-proposals/

Overheal

I stopped at 15 seconds. Heres why.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/poll-bearers

jank

28064212 wrote: »

That's an insane analogy and requires a complete rewrite of history. You do realise Hitler was elected? If the citizens of Germany had been armed, then for every Jew that managed to successfully defend themselves, two would have been killed by their neighbours

Also if he knew his history he would realize that under the treaty of Versailles, France and Great Britain would have never had stood for it. Christ man, at least know your history!

Manic Moran

bobbyjoe wrote: »

What about the millions of people who want a public option, those who voted for Obama? Seems like a small vocal minority backed by vested interests can overthrow a popular proposal by bullying and threats.

Polls are showing that it's not a vocal minority, but a quite sizeable portion of the populace. Just because people voted for Obama does not mean that they necessarily approve of all his policies, it just means they preferred more of his policies to those of his opponent. Polls are currently showing about a third approving of the Obama plan, and almost half disapproving. Little wonder that he's having trouble getting the votes in Congress to pass the thing.

Your chances of getting hurt are much higher than with an unarmed person.

I beg to differ. People carrying guns around tend to be rather careful. People not carrying guns around occasionally seem a little less reluctant to beat other people up using good, old-fashioned fists. I'd be more intimidated by an unarmed fullback than an armed 'average guy', especially at a protest where police are around. The reprecrussions for a fisticuffs tend to be a little less than those for shooting someone.

Speaking of appropriate places to carry a rifle, check out the 'ice cream man' on the table.


I agree entirely!

NTM

bobbyjoe

Manic Moran wrote: »

Polls are showing that it's not a vocal minority, but a quite sizeable portion of the populace. Just because people voted for Obama does not mean that they necessarily approve of all his policies, it just means they preferred more of his policies to those of his opponent. Polls are currently showing about a third approving of the Obama plan, and almost half disapproving. Little wonder that he's having trouble getting the votes in Congress to pass the thing.



I beg to differ. People carrying guns around tend to be rather careful. People not carrying guns around occasionally seem a little less reluctant to beat other people up using good, old-fashioned fists. I'd be more intimidated by an unarmed fullback than an armed 'average guy', especially at a protest where police are around. The reprecrussions for a fisticuffs tend to be a little less than those for shooting someone.

Speaking of appropriate places to carry a rifle, check out the 'ice cream man' on the table.


I agree entirely!

NTM

So how often do you have gun rampages over there? Seems like once a month or so. A guy shot women in a gym cos he can't find a woman, kids shoot up schools and colleges cos their bullied. Not a great leap of the imagination for someone to attack Obama or his supporters because they think he is a tyrant or Marxist or whatever.
Millions marched against the war in Iraq and their views were dismissed.