What if 1000 People Brought Guns to a Meeting with the President?
I did not think that I would be recycling so soon, but in a recent post I asked: What would happen if 1000 persons showed up with guns where the president was appearing? When the first lone gunman appeared at a health care meeting, his actions were defended on the basis that he had a legal right to have a gun and had committed no criminal act. Recently, several more people appeared with guns--one with a semi-automatic weapon. So I renew my question: What will happen if a thousand show up with guns or even 20? Incredibly, the head of Gun Owners of America (on the Chris Mathews show) believes that they should all be admitted!
And why would you bring a gun to a meeting where the president is speaking? As I outlined before, these are not members of a well-organized militia (and no longer need be); the need for self-defense is minimal (except from others like-minded); target practice cannot be the goal; and neither wild animals nor other untold fears of the national parks are likely to be present. None of the ostensible reasons for the possession of guns applies. On the other hand, there have been assassinations and attempted assassinations of presidents. Arguing that the gun toters have not committed a crime is ludicrous. Does it mean that the Secret Service will have to wait until someone actually attempts to shoot the president or someone else at the gathering before they can take any action? Gun owners purport to be such strong advocates of law and order, why would they put law enforcement officers in this untenable and possibly dangerous situation?
The explanations for the presence of guns at these gatherings should embarrass all reasonable and sensible gun owners. The ones I have heard: the persons are making a statement; or they can defend themselves in case violence breaks out; the crowd would be safer if everyone had a gun; concealed weapons would be even better, etc. So you have won the right of the individual to have a gun. Doesn't a certain amount of responsibility and common sense come with that right?
The spokespersons for the NRA, Gun Owners of America and gun owners in general, instead of attempting to justify this conduct, should be out there condemning it. Issue a statement: Just Say No to Guns When the President Is Present! If we can keep licensed drivers away from the White House, we certainly should be able to keep licensed gun owners away from the president. The Second Amendment granted the right to bear arms--not to be idiots.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Judge Sarokin,
These knuckleheads will never understand your well-presented point. They defy logic in their beliefs, as evidenced by the fact that most of them believe college kids would be safer if we allowed them to carry weapons to class (yup, nothing safer than a bunch of half-awake 18-year-olds shuffling through their bookbags at 8 in the morning to find their homework with a loaded gun bouncing around the bag).
I get what you are saying about the difference between 10 and 1,000. And I think these pro-gun folks would understand that, too, if they faced the same scenario in a different context. I mean, it's all fine and dandy for them to say that having 1,000 gun-toting white guys who share their belief system are no more dangerous than 1 gun-toting white guy. But I guarantee you they'd be peeing their pants in fear and outrage if they showed up to, say, listen to their pin-up girl Sarah Palin hold court on getting tougher on terrorists, and found themselves surrounded by 1,000 assault-we
"They defy logic in their beliefs, as evidenced by the fact that most of them believe college kids would be safer if we allowed them to carry weapons to class (yup, nothing safer than a bunch of half-awake 18-year-olds shuffling through their bookbags at 8 in the morning to find their homework with a loaded gun bouncing around the bag)."
You have to be 21 to get a CCW permit. Try learning the facts before you go on an incoherent rant.
"These knuckleheads will never understand your well-presented point. "
Great way to win an argument, come out insulting people.
BTW, have you even bothered to read the discussion below? "(yup, nothing safer than a bunch of half-awake 18-year-olds shuffling through their bookbags at 8 in the morning to find their homework with a loaded gun bouncing around the bag). "
21 year olds.
"I mean, it's all fine and dandy for them to say that having 1,000 gun-toting white guys who share their belief system are no more dangerous than 1 gun-toting white guy."
White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, etc.
"listen to their pin-up girl Sarah Palin "
Sarah is not my pin-up girl. She is mildly pleasant to look at, but a bumbling goof ball when it comes to a lot of facts.
"found themselves surrounded by 1,000 assault-we
If they were waving guns, they would be arrested on the spot or shot. If they kept their firearms slung or holstered, abided by all federal state and local laws, were only carrying outside the venue, all just like the protestors in the article, then the problems with them being armed would be negligable.
Dear Mr.Sarokin
I get your concern in this matter. When I read of this issue, I was asking myself the very same questions. Up here in Canada, people don't carry guns, and we don't worry about being shot— only humiliated, ignored and tazered— but then people can be so wishy-washy a lot of the time. Instead, we get Justice officials who are curt with us if they suspect we don't necessarily enjoy the same political perspectives. I am struggling through that, and let me tell you, it's not pretty when you can't even find a lawyer to represent you due to your religious convictions.
The funny thing is that down in the U.S., gun-owners are more outspoken even though one might reason that the prevalence of guns could be a deterrent to open communication. Apparently, left-wing extremists, who employ politically-correct modes of speech, opt to cover their tracks by making everything "funny" so they can then claim it was a joke if anybody gets offended— or else feign ignorance when they make serious errors.
Anyhow, I've noticed Obama is going on a lot of vacations these days, and I couldn't help wondering if it's to counter the stress of these unique interactions with the N.R.A.…
When you have something like the crime we have in the US, then come and tell us how you don't need guns.
I think it's important that all politicians be reminded frequently that they are not invincible.
"I repeat I do not ask that you give up your right to bear arms but merely use some common sense when exercising it. I can see that I have convinced no one-----so let's close this until we meet again. Thank you for your interest and responses.
I wouldn't say that Judge. I think most of us, on both sides, agree that there needs to be a secure zone around the president when he goes out in public. Those who disagree aren't being realistic, IMO. I also think that most of us don't consider a secure zone to be an infringement of our rights. It needs to be as large as it needs to be, but it's impossible to totally isolate the man in a public situation, especially along parade routes, or in large public crowds outdoors. I'm not saying that the people attending should be allowed to be armed, but in such a situation, a secure zone might be too difficult to maintain, as it has proven to be before.
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
Some of the comments have indicated that no one with a gun was in the vicinity of the President. But isn't the argument that they could line the President's parade route, or assemble outside (or as some claim) even inside with their weapons. And the reason I think (and the reason I pose the question) is that as the numbers increase, the more difficult it will be for law enforcement to observe and possibly locate that one legal possessor of a weapon who wishes to harm the President. I repeat I do not ask that you give up your right to bear arms but merely use some common sense when exercising it. I can see that I have convinced no one-----so let's close this until we meet again. Thank you for your interest and responses.
What's going to stop them if they choose to?
The USSS clears people within a zone of the President. The zone varies in size depending on his exposure. And the USSS said they had no problem with these people bringing their firearms.
Judge,
Again, it is not "that one legal possessor of a weapon who wishes to harm the President" that you have to be worried about. It's the Hinckley's of the world who are unfazed by any gun laws you have to worry about.
The claim that sniper nests would be placed along motorcade routes was made by the BC when the Senate voted to strip the DC city council of the ability to pass any gun control legislation as well as the claim that kindergarten kids would pack firearms to class--are you sure you want to repeat the BC histrionics?
Sorry about repeat posts. A glitch in the site was hiding the posts and showing an empty moderation queue, indicating the posts were being deleted.
Ditto. I don't want to scare anyone into thinking that I have an assault-mouse. It's still one click, one post. :)
Judge-
Your argument is based on a false presumption that 1000 law abiding citizens with legally carried firearms is somehow a greater danger than only one citizen with a legally carried firearm. Furthermore, there are people who find it absurd to exercise CCW in a grocery store, a shopping mall, or a playground, because they perceive the environment to be less of a threat. The fact is, crime can happen anywhere. Do you think that there is absolutely no threat whatsoever from a liberal supporter of Obamacare freaking out at a town hall and attempting harm to those in opposition? Are you saying that ONLY conservatives or those exercising their RKBA are THE ONLY ONES capable of killing someone?
The central issue being missed....
We have almost 20 years of data to support the fact that law-abiding CCW has not lead to an increase in crime from those individuals. Also, the left is falling into the protesters trap of diverting attention from Obamacare to a non-issue of legal CCW. If the left was smart, they would ignore the protesters and focus on strengthening their argument for Socialized Health care.
Judge-
Your argument is based on a false presumption that 1000 law abiding citizens with legally carried firearms is somehow a greater danger than only one citizen with a legally carried firearm. Furthermore, there are people who find it absurd to exercise CCW in a grocery store, a shopping mall, or a playground, because they perceive the environment to be less of a threat. The fact is, crime can happen anywhere. Do you think that there is absolutely no threat whatsoever from a liberal supporter of Obamacare freaking out at a town hall and attempting harm to those in opposition? Are you saying that ONLY conservatives or those exercising their RKBA are THE ONLY ONES capable of killing someone?
The central issue being missed....
We have almost 20 years of data to support the fact that law-abiding CCW has not lead to an increase in crime from those individuals. Also, the left is falling into the protesters trap of diverting attention from Obamacare to a non-issue of legal CCW. If the left was smart, they would ignore the protesters and focus on strengthening their argument for Socialized Health care.
just once i would like to see a quote from the anti-gunners by the founding fathers which states that the common person has no right to be safe or free from harm and has no right to defend themselves in their home or on their travels from others seeking to deprive them of life or property..
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
twogunmojo - Wow. What a leap from worrying about the President's safety to being "anti-woman"! Nobody has yet explained to me how having a gun in the presence of the President of the United States is necessary for the self-defense of the person carrying the gun.
"Nobody has yet explained to me how having a gun in the presence of the President of the United States "
No one had a firearm in his presence.
Again, no one was carrying a firearm in the presence of the President.
who had a gun in the actual presence of the president.
who was carrying a gun in the actual presence of the president.
Judge H. Lee Sarokin wrote: "Nobody has yet explained to me how having a gun in the presence of the President of the United States is necessary for the self-defense of the person carrying the gun."
Well, you could ask the members of the Secret Service, I am sure that they primarily carry guns to protect the president, but since they would be in the line of fire, it would also be used in self defense.
I realize that is not the type of answer you are looking for, however...
I believe that all parties in the presence of the president (with the exception of his security detail) should be screened for weapons and if they have a weapon they should be disarmed.
Judge H. Lee Sarokin - Huffpost Blogger I'm a Fan of Judge H. Lee Sarokin I'm a fan of this user 16 fans permalink
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
OdinsEye - I think you are ducking my question. This is not a choice between between the illegal and the legal firearm carrier. Why should either be carrying a weapon in the vicinity of the President. Can you guarantee that no legal firearm possessor is a threat to the President?
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 AM on 08/21/2009
----------
can you guarantee that an armed officer of the law or security detail is 100% safe.....
"On the other hand, there have been assassinations and attempted assassinations of presidents"
And how many of those assassins were openly carrying guns and waving signs in full view of everyone?
Presidential assassins don't carry openly. They either conceal their guns until they get close enough for a pistol shot, or shoot with a rifle from a concealed position far out of view.
If you want to kill the President, doing something that draws obvious attention to yourself is the surest way to fail.
Ohio, when 20 or 30 or 100 people openly stand around with guns, it makes it much easier for a would-be assassin to get around without attracting attention to him as an individual, because attention must be spread across the whole group, rather than towards one person behaving suspiciously.
In addition to gun licenses, some people should also be forced to obtain stupidity licenses.
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
Ohio9 - Everyone is still ducking. Why run the risk of having civilians with guns when the President is present even if those carrying concealed weapons are more likely to be assassins. In fact, adopting your reasoning the intended assassin is less likely to arouse suspicion if he carries his weapon openly. The word is out that you can carry your gun openly.
Openly carrying a gun is going to draw attention to yourself, legal or not. I don't think that's ever going to change. Also these protesters were not just carrying guns. They were holding up signs and clearly participating in an act of public protest. There is no way that's going to go unnoticed.
Anyway to answer your question, I'll just refer you to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs:
"There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally. Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality."
That's all there is to it. No explanation is needed for legal peaceful behavior. It's the law. If you don't like the law, we have a system of changing them. It's ironic the same people who accuse the protesters for being "undemocratic" for displaying their first and second amendment rights don't seem too interested in the democratic process themselves.
That being said, the protesters have fully complied with the "safe zones" set up by the secret service. As I pointed out in my previous post, the Secret Service has stated they are satisfied that the protesters have remained a safe distance from the President and are no threat.
So now it's time to answer my question. If Obama's own bodyguards don't consider the armed protesters a threat, then why are you worried about them?
Here is what the Secret Service has to say about this:
http://www
Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a "relatively new phenomenon
"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.
So there you have it. The law enforcement agency specifically charged with protecting the President has stated the armed protesters are NOT a threat.
If the President's own bodyguards do not consider the armed protesters to be harmful, the why should anyone else?
My concern is the safety of our President, the safety of bystanders and especially children. The idiots don't think about that. While they may not have any harm in mind, what's to stop some loon from grabbing their weapon and using it on the crowd etc ? Then what ? It's common sense people. No weapons should have been allowed.
So police shouldn't have firearms at these events either? How far away should the 'zone' be extended?
Sigh.I really thought anyone with an ounce of intelligence would know that the police are trained officials who gets paid to carry a weapon and protect and serve. I'm talking about non-law enforcement officials. The ones who are there are with the group of fanatics carrying Hate/Hitle
When I see this screen name, it brings to mind mold.
Relatively harmless, nevertheless, very embarrassing.
The timeworn adage "There are no stupid questions.
"If we can keep licensed drivers away from the White House, we certainly should be able to keep licensed gun owners away from the President.
The White House is federal land and subject to extra federal laws.
In most of the US, there is no provision to license firearm owners. Therefore, legally, your "licensed gun owners" don't exist any more than "licensed TV watchers", "licensed internet bloggers", etc.
Again, none of these guys were actually NEAR the President.
"Again, none of these guys were actually NEAR the President.
Facts? We don't need no stinkin' 'facts'.
"As I outlined before, these are not members of a well-organized militia (and no longer need be); "
They have never needed to be.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
