"needlessly provocative" is a good way to put it. I think I just wrote the same post at my blog.

Posted by: mostlygenius at August 17, 2009 09:38 PM

Man, I am glad to see I am not the only conservative-minded person to feel this way.

Posted by: MikeM at August 17, 2009 10:00 PM

Silly Patriotards think their guns are gonna stop the Feds.

Posted by: Eagle Feather at August 17, 2009 10:06 PM

Eagle Feather,

"Silly Patriotards think their guns are gonna stop the Feds."

Yeah, back in 1775, I recall the British took a similar view as you when it came to a "mob" of upstart colonials out in Massachusetts.

You're not very bright, are you?

Posted by: MarkJ at August 17, 2009 10:26 PM

As a gun owner I am in full support of the right to carry. To do so within a mile of the Presidents travel route or outside any place he is appearing can only create problems for the rest of us. All that it did was give the MSM a chance to say "See. We told you the protesters are kooks." This fight to save our country is too important to give them anything to get us off message.

Posted by: RickinTexas at August 17, 2009 10:50 PM

Well, we had no union thugs running amok this morning ...

Posted by: Adriane at August 17, 2009 11:04 PM

http://gunnuts.net/2009/08/17/man-does-not-break-the-law/

Posted by: Gary at August 17, 2009 11:13 PM

Well, I didn't take my AR-15 with me to a recent town hall meeting, but my handgun goes with me everywhere, including to church. The purpose of carrying firearms is to protect life and liberty. Because I carry firearms does not make me a threat to law abiding citizens, but I am less likely to be a victim or helpless bystander while I am properly protected.

Posted by: Terry in Georgia at August 17, 2009 11:21 PM

The reason for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was primarily to prevent the government from taking away our freedom and liberty, and taxing us into serfdom. The folks at risk for this are the ones who do not respect their citizens. Anyone you know?

Perhaps a display of the citizens' armaments at "O"s faked town hall meetings by our pretend CIC might make some impression on his administration.
Ruby Ridge? Sigh.

Posted by: Marc at August 17, 2009 11:39 PM

I approve the right to demonstrate the right to open carry. But I'm thinking that what was said about carrying in these circumstances was correct. I think this just shoots us in the foot.

BTW, here are some rules and regs for Arizona on open carry:

http://opencarry.org/az.html

Papa Ray
West Texas

Posted by: Papa Ray at August 18, 2009 12:22 AM

>>"The man who got the greatest amount of attention was carrying a Carbon-15 rifle"

An "assault rifle", as the idiots on the left blogs are calling it.

Posted by: Steve at August 18, 2009 12:38 AM

I'm in agreement with CY and PapaRay on this one. Though we disagree more often than not, I, too, am an open carry advocate in addition to being a concealed carry advocate. In Tennessee, carry permit holders can legally carry either openly or concealed.

In this situation, yes, "needlessly provocative" perfectly describes my feelings as well. It's just common sense.

MarkJ: You are the one who appears to be "not very bright" in this discussion. Things are a bit different in 2009 than they were in 1775. Regardless of how well armed you may be, you are WAY out gunned by the "authorities".

Posted by: Dude at August 18, 2009 12:39 AM

The openly carrying was probably a political statement given Obama's objection to gun possession as he declared it to John Lott during his U of C days. It's legal, no harm was done, it proves that people can open carry at a highly charged political event and no one got shot. I see it as a positive for the pro 2nd amendment. Only wimps who are willing to kowtow fret about it. Dude, "things" may be different from 1775, but human nature never changes.

Posted by: Jayne at August 18, 2009 01:50 AM

Jayne, so does intelligence. Those who organized the revolution in 1775 were intelligent people. The revolutionaries of today are pretty much the reason why abortion is legal.

I think there is a lot more hype being created on this than what is necessary. Especially by the MSM giving these dimwits a platform and inspiring like-minded dimwits. These gun-toters are within their legal rights to carry guns but are never within a vicinity to be a threat to the President. The Secret Service is aware of them and local and state law enforcement is also on the job making sure they're not a threat to anybody. If something stupid takes place in a crowd with these gun-toters and a few of them get dropped, so be it.

The only other choice is to do what Bush did and make the protesters stand in a parking lot several blocks away. That's not a very reasonable answer. Can you even begin to imagine what rendition camp somebody would've ended up at if this was done a few years ago under Bush/Cheney? *POOF* Vanished! Whenever the Federal government takes control of an establishment for purposes such as Presidential speeches, this voids all state laws for protection and security purposes so nobody will ever be allowed to be within vicinity to pose a threat to anybody.

Steve, the AR-15 IS an assault rifle. The manufacturers (Colt, ArmaLite) even market it as an assault rifle. Even the idiots on the left blogs are smart enough to know it's an assault rifle and if they're idiots, this makes you a what?

Posted by: Lipiwitz at August 18, 2009 03:44 AM

Sigh..

First, it's not an AR-15, it's a Bushmaster 15. It is NOT an assault rifle, it is a semi-automatic rifle.

Second, the rifle WAS NOT LOADED. The second magazine the gentleman had in his back pocket though WAS filled.

Third, the "armed citizens" informed the Phoenix PD of their intention the night before, and were shadowed the entire time.

Fourth, screw the media. They were making crap up about armed protesters BEFORE any appeared. They have zero credibility.

Fifth, it's the President. Not the First Citizen, not the King or Emperor, or Messiah. There's already WAY too much deference paid to the office, regardless of who occupies it. Enough running around "making way", kissing butt, etc for the President. I don't recall ANY clause in the Constitution that says "all citizens' rights are suspended when the President is near."

Posted by: Bikerdad at August 18, 2009 04:07 AM

CNN guy: Sir, why did you bring your rifle?

EBR guy: Sir, why did you bring your camera?

Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 18, 2009 05:11 AM

I support the right to carry, open or concealed.
I carry concealed myself.
I hope people understand what they are doing and realize they are giving the leftists an opening to start trouble. It will only take one incident and there will be a push to deal with these "rightwing extremists" and their guns. That is the way it will be phrased and that could be the start of a SHTF period.

Posted by: mxdg at August 18, 2009 06:51 AM

Jayne, Yes, I do realize that human nature remains the same throughout history. That's self evident.

That wasn't my point, as you well know. You're too intelligent to have missed the point. To those who are less intelligent than you are, just to be clear, the point is that those citizens who openly or secretly wish for or advocate an armed revolution against our government in this modern era are foolish if they think that they have any chance of success.

People who wish to effect change in modern American Politics would do well to study the strategy of MLK.

Posted by: Dude at August 18, 2009 07:04 AM

Here's the guys home forum. I'd recommend reading it as, oh, balance to the CNN piece. www.arizonashooting.com/v3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=86525&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=20

Then, what bikerdad said.

Posted by: Pablo at August 18, 2009 08:35 AM

Yeah, and we all saw what happened to MLK.

And while he was being 'nonviolent', disarmed blacks were routinely beaten, terrorized and murdered by domestic terrorists.

Two men legally carrying firearms were dismissed as 'kooks' by liberals AND conservatives.

There should have been two THOUSAND men AND women openly carrying in a responsible manner.

It would have been a bit harder to dismiss them as 'kooks'.

If blacks had armed themselves they would have deterred racist terrorists like the KKK long ago.

And if a man has a right to openly carry a firearm, I see no reason to restrict that while he is not in a police station, city hall, or other traditionally prohibited area.

The Constitution should not be suspended wherever and whenever the President is in the vicinity.

Don't like the laws of the State of Arizona, Obama? Don't go there, then.

Posted by: Tailgunner at August 18, 2009 08:41 AM

I think the guns made a definite statement. You can yell at politicians all day long, but when you show up with the potential intent to do something, it makes your point go home.

Posted by: David at August 18, 2009 09:55 AM

I don't think carrying a firearm to a rally in order to make a political statement is protected under either the first or the second amendment.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at August 18, 2009 10:31 AM

The law in Arizona allows for the possession and movement of firearms. Last I looked no one was removing the 2nd amendment. The need to provoke a situation or demonstrate at a presidential event seems irresponsible. The right like to reference the founding fathers intent so I'll say I don't remember anyone carrying firearms in the room when the constitution was written or during congress as a whole. Generally citizens in populated areas didn't carry their firearms when unneeded. They had the right, but they chose responsible civil behavior. If you want to protest taxes or health care then have an debate it, contact your congressman or senator. Protest with some education and intelligence, but to go about passive aggressive with a assault rifle (or anything for that matter) in public during a political event and expect peace and civility to hold is just plain irresponsible. Something bad is going to happen.. not because you have the right, but because someone didn't exercise common sense.

Posted by: Muffler at August 18, 2009 10:37 AM

I completely disagree with the concept of making a civil argument with politicians at this point. They have discarded the constitution and no longer have any concern for individual rights. We are facing a president who has leanings that are so liberal that most in the US can not comphrend his stance. Congress is totally out of control. The government has already spent away our future and has set up the possiblity of an economic collapse. In short, the time for debate of a civil nature is over.

Posted by: David at August 18, 2009 10:59 AM

Protest with some education and intelligence, but to go about passive aggressive with a assault rifle (or anything for that matter) in public during a political event and expect peace and civility to hold is just plain irresponsible.

So, if you're peacefully and civilly carrying a weapon, which is not an assault rifle, for the kajillionth time) you shouldn't expect things to be peaceful and civil? What should you expect in such a situation, Muffler? Near as I can tell, the event was peaceful and civil, with the exception of an ACORN loonie screaming at the gentleman with the AR.

Are you saying it shouldn't have been so calm? What should they expected to have happened? Why didn't it?

Posted by: Pablo at August 18, 2009 11:54 AM

David, How about giving us some specific, concrete examples of politicians having "discarded the constitution."

TailGunner: Yes, indeed, MLK, gave his life for his cause. He was murdered by a right wing whacko and who knows how many other people may have been involved?

Nevertheless, because of his non-violent approach to reach his goal, he gained the support of millions of Americans who watched the brutal attacks on unarmed blacks. The result was national outrage.

Yes, tragically, innocent lives were lost and guilty terrorists were not convicted in many cases in the South. However, eventually, the power and strength of the Federal Government stepped in with the Big Guns on the side of what was RIGHT.

It's highly unlikely that King's dreams would have become reality had the Black's civil disobedience been an armed conflict back in the 1960s. Many more would have been murdered and terrorized by the domestic terrorists which you so aptly described.

Thanks to a few later generation District Attorneys and organizations such the ACLU and the SPLC, both criminal and civil convictions have been made in recent years. Some of those domestic terrorist finally had to pay the piper.

Think Byron De La Beckwith. It took 30 years to convict him but he finally was nailed for Medgar Evers murder, by a Mississippi jury at that! He spent the last few years of his life in less than desirable surroundings.

Think Bobby Frank Cherry, convicted 37 years after the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham in which 4 girls were murdered. Though he escaped punishment for nearly 4 decades, he spent the last 2 years of his life rotting in the gray bar hotel.

Think Thomas Edwin Blanton, Jr, currently residing as a guest of the state of Alabama in the St. Clair gray bar hotel.

Nope, an armed uprising of citizens against the Federal Government today has zero chance of success. Wise up buddy. The government has much bigger guns and many more than you have.

If angry citizens "start" an armed conflict, they'll never gain the support of the American People in modern America. If you wish to effect change in America, give it your best attempt with your brain, not your gun.

Keep in mind, while I fully support the 2nd Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know who will come out on the short end of the stick should a group or groups of angry armed citizens decide that it's time for a violent overthrow of our government.

Posted by: Dude at August 18, 2009 12:33 PM

It was his right. I don't see how it's anyone elses right to tell someone when and where he can institute his rights. I look at it as his or anybody elses right to choose to do so at the event.

On another note, if he carried his arms to prove a political point, it doesn't seem that different to me in what the government does in international situations where we sent our military to areas of the world to prove a point when the U.S. does not approve of what is going on. They don't show up blazing guns, it's more of an expression than an action to be taken as one may.

Posted by: MODude at August 18, 2009 12:51 PM

TailGunner: Yes, indeed, MLK, gave his life for his cause. He was murdered by a right wing whacko and who knows how many other people may have been involved?

Right wing? How do you figure that a Democrat George Wallace supporter was "right wing"? Dr. King was murdered by a racist, and a leftist one at that.

However, eventually, the power and strength of the Federal Government stepped in with the Big Guns on the side of what was RIGHT.

Just like the notorious Republican Abraham Lincoln.

Nope, an armed uprising of citizens against the Federal Government today has zero chance of success.

Do you have any examples to show that? I only ask because you've listed a number of things that have nothing to do with citizen uprisings.

If angry citizens "start" an armed conflict, they'll never gain the support of the American People in modern America. If you wish to effect change in America, give it your best attempt with your brain, not your gun.

I think it more likely that such a conflict would work the other way. See what just happened in Iran, and then add and armed populace. And remember that the government may have lots of guns, but they're useless without citizens to wield them. And all such citizens swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Most of them understand what that means.

Posted by: Pablo at August 18, 2009 12:51 PM

Pablo: You're intelligent enough to know full well that just because George Wallace was a Democrat he most certainly wasn't a "leftist", nor was James Earl Ray. At the time both men were racists. In the 1960s right wing Democrats ruled the "Solid South."

As the National Democrat Party moved to the left of center, Southern Democrats became DINOs (the Democrat version of modern day RINOs). Eventually, in most southern states, most Democrats dropped all pretenses and switched to the Republican Party, which more accurately reflected the right wing views of the majority of Southerners. That situation remains to this day.

Perhaps you're not old enough to remember this. I don't know. I am old enough to remember it. I lived through it.

One doesn't need examples to know that an armed uprising of citizens against the Federal Government today has zero chance of success. One needs only common sense and the capacity for "critical thinking".

Yes, indeed, most of the citizens who wield guns for the government do swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, which says, in part: (Quotes added for clarity).................

Article I - The Legislative Branch

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and "provide for the common "Defence" and general "Welfare" of the United States;"

Article IV
Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against "domestic" Violence.........

One good example in recent history of the armed government servants being willing to obey the orders of the POTUS as commander in chief is when Kennedy nationalized the Alabama National Guard to enforce the SCOTUS ordered desegregation of public schools in Alabama.

Just like the notorious Republican Abraham Lincoln? YES.

But, in this modern era we would not experience a protracted civil war. An armed uprising of angry citizens would be brutally crushed in short order, most likely by the state authorities.

In spite of fringe elements that have secessionist dreams, there simply aren't enough citizens who are interested enough to take that plunge. We are and we shall remain The United States of America.

Posted by: Dude at August 18, 2009 04:09 PM

Dude,
The constitution and our rights have been under attack since FDR. He admitted that the only right he had not modified was the right to religion. As to Obama, please show in the constitution were the FED is allowed to take over autos, health care, and the financial instituions. Now show were they can search you at the airport and block you from travel. The list goes on. You really don't know what your rights are.

Posted by: David at August 18, 2009 04:39 PM

David,

Our rights have been under attack since shortly after the beginning of the country. It's an ongoing process that the courts have to deal with and will as long as we are a nation.

Some of our rights are enumerated in the Constitution. I think people often, myself included sometimes, confuse the definition of "Rights". This is not clear to me and I struggle to learn more about the law so that I can better understand it.

I can't show you in the Constitution where the "FED is allowed to take over autos, health care, and the financial institutions."

Can you show me in the Constitution where they can't?

Searches at airports: I'm don't know enough about the law to really explain that. Though I do understand the screening and why it's in place, I certainly don't approve of people being "banned" from air travel for no good reason. I hope this all gets worked out in time through the Federal Court system. The sooner the better!!

One way that it's been explained to me, though I'm not sure that this is settled law, air travel is not a constitutional right, even though it seems that it should be. So, when we fly on a commercial airline we are agreeing to be searched before being allowed to board the plane. If we don't agree to be searched, we have the option of not flying on that plane. The short answer is: I don't know.

I DO know what some of my rights are. And, I understand that some things that we take for granted are legally "privileges", not "constitutional rights". For example, we don't have a constitutional right to possess a driver's license. That's a privilege granted to us by the individual states.

Do you honestly know what all of your constitutional "rights" are? If so, my hat's off to you and I'm ready to listen!

It makes my head hurt trying to understand it all!! Nevertheless, I shall keep trying to learn.

Respectfully,

Dude

Posted by: Dude at August 18, 2009 05:28 PM

Dude - You're intelligent to know that those "only Republicans are racist" arguments are specious. Live with your party's history. Don't try to blame others. Robert Byrd is one of those racist Democrats turned Republican, right? Nevermind.

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 18, 2009 07:02 PM

As Ronnie used to say........There ya go again.

Of course, neither of the two major political parties in America has a monopoly on racism or any other negative attribute. In many ways, there's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties.

In fact, as far as the race issue goes I'm very proud of the progress made by both the Democrat and Republican parties. Yes, we still have racists in our country in both parties and in fringe parties and always will have them. Some people are just stupid.

You missed my point, which was that the Democrat Party in the South during the civil rights era, the majority party in the South at that time, was indeed led by racists in many instances. As the Democrat party on the national level distanced itself from racism, and in fact embraced equal rights, Southern Democrats by the millions dropped out of the Party and became Republicans. That's a historical fact.

George Wallace was a racist and he was a Democrat. But, he most certainly WAS NOT a "leftist" by any standard. He was about as far right wing as a politician could have been at that time. THAT was my point.

Fortunately, Governor Wallace experienced a conversion before his death. He rejected and apologized for his racist past.

Parties change and evolve. Abraham Lincoln, one of the three greatest presidents in our nation's history, and a Republican at that, would, by today's standards, be considered much more of a leftist than many blue dog Democrats are today.

Right wing, left wing, conservative, liberal, democrat, republican: always changing.

Posted by: Dude at August 18, 2009 09:40 PM

In the 1960s right wing Democrats ruled the "Solid South."

You keep telling yourself that, Dude, and maybe the Barack Fairy will make it come true.

Posted by: Pablo at August 18, 2009 11:14 PM

Right wing, left wing, conservative, liberal, democrat, republican: always changing.

Well, that's damned convenient for you, isn't it?

Posted by: Pablo at August 18, 2009 11:15 PM

Can you show me in the Constitution where they can't?

Yeah. Read the 10th Amendment. Here, I'll help:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Any questions?

Posted by: Pablo at August 18, 2009 11:25 PM

"You keep telling yourself that, Dude, and maybe the Barack Fairy will make it come true."

Pablo, Please, don't take my word for it. I don't expect you to do that. If you'll do even just a wee bit of research on the Politics of the South during that time period you'll easily discover that it doesn't have to "come true". It already IS true. Really, it's not all that hard to do the research.

"Well, that's damned convenient for you, isn't it?"

Honestly, it's rather confusing. Think about it. By today's terminology and standards, Old Abe Lincoln was a left wing "Republican" who didn't put much stock in states' rights, now did he? Many of today's so called conservatives, including some that I personally know, consider Lincoln to have been quite the liberal activist by today's standards.

So, one must study history to know what the terms meant during a particular time period.

"Yeah. Read the 10th Amendment. Here, I'll help:.......Any questions?"

Thanks, Pablo. Nope, no questions? Unfortunately for your argument, you have a lot of homework yet to do. I'll return the favor and help you, too. A good place to start is to read ALL of Articles I, II and III of the Constitution. Then, you can spend several years studying how broadly the SCOTUS has interpreted, over the years, the powers granted to Congress and the Executive branch.

So, the 10th Amendment doesn't expressly prohibit the aforementioned scenarios because of how broadly the courts have interpreted the previous Articles I, II and III.

I will concede to you on two points. I don't always like SCOTUS rulings. Secondly, there are likely several states rights issues that have yet to be settled by the federal courts. Who knows, perhaps a suit will be filed and work its way through the courts on one of the very issues discussed previously in this thread.

Posted by: Dude at August 19, 2009 01:02 AM

Dude

I don't think the Constitution enumerates our rights. It starts with the premise that we have rights and enumerates what the government can't infringe upon.

Also if there was a domestic insurrection what of the thousands of US NG and regular troops overseas? Pulling 50,000 troops out of South Korea is going to be pretty messy.

I suppose the police could jump in but they're more used to tasing grandmas and pregnant women at baptisms.

Posted by: Pinandpuller at August 19, 2009 03:57 AM

I also don't think the SCOTUS wrote or writes the Constitution. If you're looking for something in the Constitution, you need to be reading the Constitution.

So, the 10th Amendment doesn't expressly prohibit the aforementioned scenarios because of how broadly the courts have interpreted the previous Articles I, II and III.

See the problem there, in terms of your question?

Posted by: Pablo at August 19, 2009 08:18 AM

Pablo, I read portions of the Constitution several times each week. It's one of my favorite past times.

Of course, you are correct that the SCOTUS didn't write the Constitution. It does, however, interpret the Constitution and its opinions on Constitutional issues are the supreme law of the land under our system of government.

Posted by: Dude at August 19, 2009 10:16 AM