Good, you understand. The media shouldn't turn insignificant non-events into national stories. The typical model of reporting is best described as a car with a flat tire. What is the story there? It's the flat tire -- not that the other three tires worked perfectly well.

Here, the media reported on one of the perfectly working tires and then made a national story about it.

No. Jesus, why do you not get it? A right is something the government can not take away... it isn't something the government gives you. You have the right to pursue happiness. That does not mean the government's role is to bestow happiness upon you.

C'mon. Folks walking around with loaded weapons at public meetings, rather than being a show a free rights, is exactly the opposite. It's intmidating and possibly curtails free speech. I wasn't for it when the Black Panthers did it and I'm not for it when Johnny Militia does it.

You can't say that it's not going to scare folks away from the meeting. That is violating their rights, also.

Did I miss the liberals screaming about the Panthers outside a POLLING PLACE? 'Cause I don't remember much of an outcry from the left. Huh. And Justice has just sat on it, too. Imagine.

Bunty, doesn't want to get it. It isn't about what the constitution says, it has disolved into everyone and their brother thinking they should be the ones to make those decisions. Jefferson and Franklin didn't do anything too great - right?. The man on the street's opinion about the foundation of our country - the constitution - is just as good and you don't even have to follow the law to demand it. Who cares about the constitution, these days? And who cares about going through the process of amending it if it doesn't jive with popular thinking? People are so ignorant and so complacent that all you have to do is pass a law or a regulation and if it sounds good, the people are willing to accept it. The fact that the law or regulation is not grounded in the law is no big deal. We gave up being a country of laws - at least a lot of people want that to happen so long as they get what they want. That it will swarm on us at some point is not their concern, today.

Let me tell you what. I be a good neighbor, respect their rights and not act like a fool and they are going to look out for me just like they would anyone else. Most of those folks are the salt of the earth and they recognize BS when they see it. Or not.

How is that violating anyone's rights? Being intimidating isn't violating anyone's rights. Otherwise you could make the case that any police officer is violating my rights just by walking by. Now, if he was brandishing the weapon in threatening manner, I might agree, but from what I've seen, that was not the case.

Bunty is Jesus?

Bunty is Jesus like.

Monk, I am a gun nut of sorts and strongly believe in the right to carry CONSEALED guns, but having one out in sight in a crowd IS intimidating. Do you not have a problem when you hear that there are armed Taliban around poling places. Don't you think they are there to intimidate those who want to vote? Guns should never be shown unless there is an immediate need. What if everyone started showing up at political gathering armed to the teeth. No peaceful person is going to want to hang around. It kinda ends any debate.

W.H. Backs Right to Guns Outside Events

Washington Post: Health Care Town Hall Protests

People on both sides of the health care battle speak out at local town hall meetings
From Our Partner:


Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality."

Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs's comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.

"What Gibbs said is wrong," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It's crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody."

The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans' event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.

Phoenix police made no arrests, saying Arizona law allows weapons to be carried in the open.

Last week, a man with a gun strapped to his leg held a sign outside an Obama town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., that read: "It's time to water the tree of liberty." (Read an interview with the man here)

Before the same meeting, Richard Terry Young, a New Hampshire resident, was arrested by the Secret Service for allegedly having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car. Young was stopped inside the school where Obama held the forum, having reportedly sneaked past a security perimeter.

Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a "relatively new phenomenon." But he said the president's safety is not being jeopardized.

"We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms," he said. "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered. These people weren't ticketed for events and wouldn't have been allowed inside and weren't in a position outside to offer a threat." The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said.

Lawmakers holding tense town hall debates about health-care reform also have seen armed constituents. The staff of some, including Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.), have taken precautions to guard against guns being brought into gatherings.

"We asked everyone with firearms to check them with the sheriff before we began the meeting," said Marilyn Dillihay, Cohen's chief of staff, describing an Aug. 8 town hall debate in Memphis. "We've never done that before." The decision was made because the number of people at the event and the subject of the debate created a "potentially a volatile situation," she said.

"Obviously there's a lot of emotion with health care," Dillihay said. "Feelings are very tense, and we were just trying to make sure that things were safe."

One man at the meeting disclosed that he had a firearm and complied with a request to put it in his vehicle, she said.

Other lawmakers said they intended to take no precautions in future town hall meetings or to ask the advice of local law enforcement. C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), said the congresswoman will "balance rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment and providing her constituents with a safe forum to share their views."

Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University at San Bernardino, said concern about whether Obama will enact new gun restrictions may also be contributing to the tense political climate.

"There's a lot of anger out there," Levin said.

"A key thing that's been bubbling under the surface is what's going on with President Obama and guns," he said. "There is a real question mark not only for extremists but for gun rights advocates in the mainstream."

I'm curious, if you ask these gun toters WHY they had it out at the particular event, what do they say? "I was afraid a liberal was going to attack me." What DO they use as an explanation? Regardless of what they say, I cannot help but think they are little better than the Taliban. If I show up at a rally and I saw my cohorts totin' I would leave. Talk about sorry ass manners, Jeez. I do KNOW it is their RIGHT but it is not a reason. What DO they say?

I suspect it was an in your face message that the bleeding hearts aren't going to intimidate them into giving up their constitutional rights. Instead of hand wringing, I wish more nervous nellies would sit up and notice that people actually carried guns without accidently shooting someone. The real problem with the left is that they fundamentally misunderstand the mind set of conservatives and gun people. They are rule followers and law abiders. They aren't rule breakers and protesters, by nature. Liberals fear guns and they fear that the right will do something violent. I suppose it could happen but it won't be without provocation. Another conservative would take down a wild conservative shooter just as fast as they would a terrorist. Count on it.

I personally probably wouldn't carry but I don't care if other citizens choose to exercise their rights. If there weren't so many people shoving their own fears and concerns off on their fellow citizens and shamelessly trying to limit their constitutional rights due to their own hysteria about guns, the discussion wouldn't rise to the level of one side staring down the other. The gun holders have the law on their side.

And let me say this - I lost my brother because some guy pulled a gun on him and it accidently went off. Or so he said. No charges brought but that is neither here nor there. I spent the better part of my childhood and adult life terrified of guns and what can happen when even well intended people own them. Because of that, I stayed away from them, didn't know anything about them and, frankly, would have been a hazard to myself and others if I had tried to handle one. I was in my forties before I began educating myself about guns and, frankly, am a bit embarassed that I bought all the hoopla and fear perpetrated on the rest of the population by people who are acting out of fear rather than reason.

I fully support gun education. I think kids should be taught about proper gun handling because to pretend guns aren't out there is EXACTLY the same as refusing to give your kids sex education for fear that you will encourage poor decisions. Education is not your enemy. I'm not saying you should keep a gun in the house with kids - I wouldn't - but they ought to be taken to the range and given proper instruction. Demystifying it and letting them know there are rules to follow other than what they see in the movies (which is where a lot of non gun people get their education - geesh) would be good for them.

I don't understand why someone would bring a gun into the general vicinity of the President. The Secret Service is going to end up accidentally taking one of these fools out before too long.

The Secret Service will get enough of these gun-toting rednecks eventually and simply increase the no-gun perimeter around the president at public events. "But I have the Constitutional right to carry a gun..." Go exercise that right at the airport, and get back to us on that, okay?

Class dismissed.

Once again, make no doubt about it, it's really is a matter of opinion as to what is a right and what isn't. So I ask why the hell don't you grasp that as very true, Caboose? By the way, haven't you heard just as sure as the government can take something away such as a right, it can also take away? And that's not a matter of opinion, it's a FACT.

This evening I heard Sean Hannity having a rare bout with good sense on his radio show. He stated that he doesn't support or encourage anyone to bring guns to see the president or other political figure. He thinks doing that is an inappropriate way to express yourself, including as a way to show support for the 2nd Amendment.

"This evening I heard Sean Hannity having a rare bout with good sense on his radio show..."

It's a wonder that your ears didn't bleed out.

If the issue of a rally 0r gathering of any kind is regarding 2nd Amendment rights, it would make sense to show ones arms as an expression. But if it is about anything else then brandishing arms is smartass bravado, imho, and is intended to intimidate.

Everytime I enter a building that has a sign saying No Consealed Weapons I cringe and hope someone is breaking that rule in case a nutball comes in shooting. I like to think that a large portion of those around me are armed, but I certainly don't need to know which ones. I guess that to me it is a matter of taste.

I didn't hear anyone talking about brandishing weapons and to throw that out there is inaccurate and fear mongering. If it bothers you that people are armed, I understand and you can certainly say that. But to accuse people of brandishing weapons when they didn't, isn't fair or accurate. I personally would be nervous if someone was doing that. But there is a HUGE diffferent between openly carrying a weapon and brandishing one. Gun fearers don't know the difference and it is all the same to them but that is ignorance, not reality.

some of the things im seeing being defended on this thread and others is astonishing to me. are we throwing common sense out the window? you DONT show up where the president is speaking carrying a gun in plain view. you just DONT. and defending those actions with the kind of zeal that im seeing...is just outside of the realm. you love your guns. we get it. no one is fervently pushing any kind of legislation to take your precious guns away. unless you want to bring up something that was written years ago by some no nothing law maker that cant or wont make it out of committee! to think this administration would want to open that hornets nest right now, with everything that is going on in this country, is a red herring. Are we really still debating health care when a man brings a handgun to a church where the President is speaking? a president who according to the secret service already has gotten four times as many death threats against him as his predecessor? think for a moment people, just because it is legal to do, doesnt mean you should do it.

No it isnt.


Because it is not only untrue, but exceedingly stupid.

I think you meant to say "grant" here, but regardless, you are still wrong. We do not derive our rights from the government. The government protects our rights, it doesn't give them to us.

You would make a good case study for those who say liberalism is a mental disorder.

Forget it. When a liberal believes that it is the government that bestows rights on it's people, there is no changing their mind. That premise is the very backbone of liberalism and socialism afterall.

Unfortunately the statist agenda has ingrained and pounded that point in so effectively that the masses are starting to believe it.

Let us review:

Key words here: Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.

It doesn't read: Endowed by their government with certain rights.

The man-lust that modern liberals have for authority and government control is sickening. Yet they continually deride conservative "fascism". The whole thing is really quite Orwellian.