Next Question
RSS
From what I gather, the people that are trying to say this man was in the town hall and were a danger to the President are off base. He was outside the town hall, and the spokesman for the Secret Service, Ed Donovan, stated definitively that the man was no danger to the president whatsoever. He was just a demonstrator, displaying what the law says and what rights he has. Probably it is a good lesson to people on what the law actually says.
As for being a danger, the Secret Service does have the obligation to protect the president, and from what I understand, there is an area of control around the President at all times, which for all intents and purposes makes the area the same as a Federal building, in which it is illegal to carry weapons. This man was outside that area.
As for the one poster who states that the 2nd amendment was from a different time, and things need to be changed. I think I agree in a lot of ways. Things change and laws stay the same. People are slow to modify their behavior. That is why there are amendment procedures to the constitution. So far there is not enough support to amend the constitution, and so therefore, possibly things have not changed as much as this poster thinks. Maybe it is because people are slow to realize what needs to be done, but maybe it is also because some people want to dictate new methods of doing things without going through the proper channels and doing it lawfully.
The system is set up so the minority can not overrule the majority, and the words of the constitution have a bit more protection as you need slightly more than a majority to change it, although the justices do modify it from time to time with activist rulings. I am not saying I agree with the system, but that is how it is, and there would have to be a revolution to change the constitution.
In any case this man was within the law, and if someone wants the law changed, they have two options, amend the constitution, or overthrow it and start over.
Permalink | Report
It is that kind of law that makes the USA a way more dangerous place than it should have to be, and the fact that someone can wear a rifle to a presidential meeting is just an absurd example...
Permalink | Report
albanian
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2
Source(s):
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2
Permalink | Report
If people can't carry guns into a court, why would they assume they could tote one into a Presidential audience?
What about in a jail?
What about in a high school?
What about on airplanes?
Ridiculous to think that a gun is permissible anywhere near our President. Even if you don't like the President's politics, just imagine: What if you were a member of his family? How would you feel? How would you feel if this guy decided to take a gun on a plane next with your son or daughter seated in the row behind him?
How about if this guy shows up at your town's high school carrying a gun, and your niece and nephew are inside?
How do you feel then about his right to bear arms?
To all the Second Amendment folks out there, you are grossly misinterpreting the spirit of the Amendment. The "right to bear arms" meant that the goverment shall never take away the firearms of the people, preventing the people from DEFENDING themselves.
Never in a million years did our founding fathers ever mean that a bunch of redneck Baptists looking to shoot the President must be allowed to carry a gun to a political rally. That is ridiculous logic. The protesters have no need to "defend" themselves at a rally.
And if a sense of right and wrong won't sway the gun nuts, then maybe a sense of economy will. We, as Americans, pay a LOT of tax dollars to defend and protect the President. Dangerous nutjobs like the guy with the gun only cost us MORE money to protect the POTUS.
Listen, guns are instruments of death. Have your political opinions all you like, but don't you bring an instrument of death anywhere near our President and then hide like a coward behind the Bill of Rights. Have more sense than that.
Tags: weapons, guns, billofrights
Helpful Answer?
(5)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Source(s):
My heart!
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc tell lies.
Those lies give birth to fear.
Fear breeds violence.
The Bible says "Fear not, my child."
Now, who's on the right side of the Lord?
Permalink | Report
Then I'd make the ticket a number inked on an egg.
"No eggy no gunny."
Maybe it's a constitutional issue whether or not security can disarm protestors, but *nothing* *anywhere* says a President or anybody *must* walk out on stage in front of an armed crowd if he or she doesn't want to!
Permalink | Report
The people in this article weren't exactly "at" the official presidential event, but were instead somewhere outside the building and away from the Secret Service security area. The article says:
"Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Service spokesman Donovan said, "Of course not."
The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site "
Protesters should, however, be allowed to carry guns in public. Protesters have just as many rights as the rest of us, and exercising their first amendment rights doesn't nullify their second amendment rights.
Source(s):
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1.25
August 27, 2009 05:45 AM
Should protesters be allowed to carry guns at Presidential events? Should the secret service ask them to leave?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33749589@N07/3860646135/
I think we all heard about this fella, he was one of the few members of a crowd outside a presidential Town Hall in Arizona who openly carried anassault rifles
Turns out this guy citizen is a member of Faithful World Baptist Church and it was recently uncovered that in anticipation to Obama's arrival the pastor there, Steven L Anderson, presented a sermon in church praying for Obama's death he even said he wanted to make a widow of his wife...classy.
Upon learning these facts do you still think guns are appropriate at Presidential events? Or does it seem likely that this fellow might have taken a shot if he had a chance? Is that a risk Americans are willing to make?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fBRglimkgo
I think we all heard about this fella, he was one of the few members of a crowd outside a presidential Town Hall in Arizona who openly carried anassault rifles
Turns out this guy citizen is a member of Faithful World Baptist Church and it was recently uncovered that in anticipation to Obama's arrival the pastor there, Steven L Anderson, presented a sermon in church praying for Obama's death he even said he wanted to make a widow of his wife...classy.
Upon learning these facts do you still think guns are appropriate at Presidential events? Or does it seem likely that this fellow might have taken a shot if he had a chance? Is that a risk Americans are willing to make?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fBRglimkgo
- In People In The News |
- Tags: townhalls, obama |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Decided by Votes
| August 27, 2009 02:51 PM |
As for being a danger, the Secret Service does have the obligation to protect the president, and from what I understand, there is an area of control around the President at all times, which for all intents and purposes makes the area the same as a Federal building, in which it is illegal to carry weapons. This man was outside that area.
As for the one poster who states that the 2nd amendment was from a different time, and things need to be changed. I think I agree in a lot of ways. Things change and laws stay the same. People are slow to modify their behavior. That is why there are amendment procedures to the constitution. So far there is not enough support to amend the constitution, and so therefore, possibly things have not changed as much as this poster thinks. Maybe it is because people are slow to realize what needs to be done, but maybe it is also because some people want to dictate new methods of doing things without going through the proper channels and doing it lawfully.
The system is set up so the minority can not overrule the majority, and the words of the constitution have a bit more protection as you need slightly more than a majority to change it, although the justices do modify it from time to time with activist rulings. I am not saying I agree with the system, but that is how it is, and there would have to be a revolution to change the constitution.
In any case this man was within the law, and if someone wants the law changed, they have two options, amend the constitution, or overthrow it and start over.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (8)
August 27, 2009 07:23 AM
The NRA is probably going to be on my back for this, but I don't consider ANY gun to be welcome in public, with the exception on when the police or military are holding them. The 'right to own a gun' law is ancient, and stems from the wild west times. The USA has grown beyond those times, and that law should be revoked instantly. It is that kind of law that makes the USA a way more dangerous place than it should have to be, and the fact that someone can wear a rifle to a presidential meeting is just an absurd example...
Permalink | Report
Reply
albanian
August 27, 2009 04:50 PM
The law predates the wild west days. It's from the Revolutionary period. But it was never intended to be interpreted the way it is now.
Tip albanian for this comment
Report
August 27, 2009 05:52 PM
As someone who carries a firearm, I think caring one to a Presidential event is crazy in the worst way. It makes the right to bear arms supporters look redundant. But the Law is the Law and I think they need to change that one for sure. But as far as carrying a gun in public, that is my right and I will exercise it when I choose to do so. If only the police and military were allowed to carry fire arms only them and criminals would have them.
I do not live in the wild west I live in 2009 and violent crime is on the rise. I will not be an unarmed victim.
Report
I do not live in the wild west I live in 2009 and violent crime is on the rise. I will not be an unarmed victim.
August 27, 2009 06:57 PM
I understand your point, but the fact that you state 'I have the right to wear a gun, so I will wear a gun' is exactly why that right should be revoked. That law should be revoked as quickly as possible.
Just remember, each and every gun makes society more dangerous, not safer, including yours.
When guns are involved, it is not a question of whether you can retaliate those criminals, it is about whether you can outgun them. Are you going to take that risk? I wouldn't. Id prefer to be an unarmed (and hopefully unharmed) victim.
Report
Just remember, each and every gun makes society more dangerous, not safer, including yours.
When guns are involved, it is not a question of whether you can retaliate those criminals, it is about whether you can outgun them. Are you going to take that risk? I wouldn't. Id prefer to be an unarmed (and hopefully unharmed) victim.
August 28, 2009 12:53 AM
@mithrandir, I understand your point. But being a ex military member and Police officer, I have no intention of out gunning anyone. I will use the amount of force required to protect innocent lives. The right to bear arms in America came from those who did just that. I have fought for my country and fought in my country and I will always try to protect those in need. Retaliation plays no part.
Report
August 28, 2009 05:31 AM
Yeah, well, how am I supposed to know you are indeed that law-abiding ex-military, when I meet you in the street? I can't judge the book by its cover, can I?
Maybe you are that one ex-military that has been in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam, saw terrible crimes, and suddenly loses his mind. That happens.
I would prefer you to lose your mind without holding a gun, than WITH that gun.
I wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood, raising my kids where some guy is parading down the street with his gun. I would be scared as hell...
So no, you have in no part convinced me.
Report
Maybe you are that one ex-military that has been in Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam, saw terrible crimes, and suddenly loses his mind. That happens.
I would prefer you to lose your mind without holding a gun, than WITH that gun.
I wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood, raising my kids where some guy is parading down the street with his gun. I would be scared as hell...
So no, you have in no part convinced me.
August 28, 2009 11:49 AM
@mithrandir, I am not trying to convince you. This type of disagreement has gone on for years so lets just agree to disagree. I believe one way and you believe another and I respect your beliefs.
Report
August 27, 2009 07:30 AM
Just can't argue with this. So unless they change this Amendment I think its okay as long as nobody is firing them. Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2
Source(s):
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 27, 2009 11:22 AM
You are absolutely right by the "order of the law", but is there really any valid reason to be packing a semi-automatic at a town hall meeting with the President of the United States? I can wear a Speedo in public any time I want, but doesn't it serve little purpose to do so at the town hall meeting?
Report
August 27, 2009 04:57 PM
You are quoting the constitution but not understanding the English used. The right to bear arms means the right to serve in the military. As a judge said back in the 1840's, a man could carry a rifle all his life for hunting and never be said to have borne arms. And I'll add, whereas a man who served in the Navy may never have held a gun but is said to have borne arms for his country.
Report
August 28, 2009 05:33 AM
The NRA is a lobbyist group, and a very strong one indeed. They are the single reason the law-guns aren't changed immediately.
Report
August 27, 2009 01:40 PM
Absolutely not. It is nowhere NEAR okay to carry a gun to a Presidential event. If people can't carry guns into a court, why would they assume they could tote one into a Presidential audience?
What about in a jail?
What about in a high school?
What about on airplanes?
Ridiculous to think that a gun is permissible anywhere near our President. Even if you don't like the President's politics, just imagine: What if you were a member of his family? How would you feel? How would you feel if this guy decided to take a gun on a plane next with your son or daughter seated in the row behind him?
How about if this guy shows up at your town's high school carrying a gun, and your niece and nephew are inside?
How do you feel then about his right to bear arms?
To all the Second Amendment folks out there, you are grossly misinterpreting the spirit of the Amendment. The "right to bear arms" meant that the goverment shall never take away the firearms of the people, preventing the people from DEFENDING themselves.
Never in a million years did our founding fathers ever mean that a bunch of redneck Baptists looking to shoot the President must be allowed to carry a gun to a political rally. That is ridiculous logic. The protesters have no need to "defend" themselves at a rally.
And if a sense of right and wrong won't sway the gun nuts, then maybe a sense of economy will. We, as Americans, pay a LOT of tax dollars to defend and protect the President. Dangerous nutjobs like the guy with the gun only cost us MORE money to protect the POTUS.
Listen, guns are instruments of death. Have your political opinions all you like, but don't you bring an instrument of death anywhere near our President and then hide like a coward behind the Bill of Rights. Have more sense than that.
Tags: weapons, guns, billofrights
Helpful Answer?
(5)
(0)
Helpful: buddawiggi, brian san, chriswingate, philipy, jeffhoard
Tip gno for this answer
Reply
August 27, 2009 03:53 PM
Anyone that is minded to excuse this because they dislike Barack Obama, think about how you'd feel about people bringing guns to an event with Ronald Reagan, George W Bush or Sarah Palin.
Politicians face enough dangers without allowing this kind of idiocy.
The culture wars in America are pretty depressing, but at least they're not shooting wars mostly.
Report
Politicians face enough dangers without allowing this kind of idiocy.
The culture wars in America are pretty depressing, but at least they're not shooting wars mostly.
August 27, 2009 02:49 PM
It was a gun that brought independence to this nation, I do not believe we should through away that right, just because we've served our purpose to them, and they are finished with us. They can not throw us away that easily, for as it was a gun that started this country's independence, it can very well be said, that a gun can take it away as well, should they deviate from the path to which we have allowed them. By all means, I believe guns should be carried by all americans, and loaded guns at that, to remind this goverment that as they imprison us for our breach of contract, that they too are not above our own laws, the laws of free individuality. I hope this helps!
Source(s):
My heart!
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 27, 2009 05:03 PM
The Secret Service are good at their job. I would leave such decisions to them. There are already laws in place that prevent people from having a gun somewhere that will threaten the President. In this case it appears the demonstrators were outside the building and the President was in no danger.
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 27, 2009 05:54 PM
Absolutely not! I have no opinion about whether guns should be outlawed. Heck, I live in Texas, so obviously I don't have a problem with guns, but there's a time and place to have one or display one. I can't help but think perhaps the action of guns being carried to those townhall meetings is simply someone trying to make a statement about the President's perceived desire by right-wing extremists to outlaw guns. Considering the tone of those meetings, I would say that statement is right on the money. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc tell lies.
Those lies give birth to fear.
Fear breeds violence.
The Bible says "Fear not, my child."
Now, who's on the right side of the Lord?
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 28, 2009 04:37 AM
If I was President I'd say, "I'm not speaking unless you check in your guns at the gate... you'll be given a ticket to get yours back when you leave". Then I'd make the ticket a number inked on an egg.
"No eggy no gunny."
Maybe it's a constitutional issue whether or not security can disarm protestors, but *nothing* *anywhere* says a President or anybody *must* walk out on stage in front of an armed crowd if he or she doesn't want to!
Permalink | Report
Reply
August 30, 2009 07:46 AM
People are not and probably should not be allowed to carry guns "at" Presidential events. The people in this article weren't exactly "at" the official presidential event, but were instead somewhere outside the building and away from the Secret Service security area. The article says:
"Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Service spokesman Donovan said, "Of course not."
The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site "
Protesters should, however, be allowed to carry guns in public. Protesters have just as many rights as the rest of us, and exercising their first amendment rights doesn't nullify their second amendment rights.
Source(s):
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
Permalink | Report
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- ehauser, November 28, 2009 07:08 PM
- jwalters7, November 28, 2009 07:03 PM
- lisavela, November 28, 2009 07:01 PM
- kojomensah, November 28, 2009 06:55 PM
- shane34, November 28, 2009 06:50 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
