DescentBB

d3jake wrote:Obviously if a man is exercising his right he's just "trying to be a man" What if it was a woman? Well, she couldn't really be accused of "pretending to be a man," could she? Why is it that a man with a firearm is suddenly trying to prove his sex and not just exercising his rights?

Because we were discussing the person at the Obama debate, who was male. I continued with that when describing the playground scenario. Sex is irrelevant. Most of these people who walk around with a shotgun in plain view, slung over their shoulder, or with a weapon strapped to their belt are doing it because they either have an inferiority complex or have shortcomings in another area. I don't believe a responsible gun owner does that.

I'm just probing how far members in this forum would go to defend the right of a heavily armed individual to go anywhere he chooses.

Bee

Behemoth wrote:Oh wait, we MUST not know what's good for ourselves i guess, since this is a government spoonfed media ring circus america.

Isn't that being prejudiced?

Bee

Behemoth wrote:More importantly, Why is it that our right to bear arms at any venue is questionable?

But what’s the point? If you see me walking around on the street with my chain saw, you can figure I’m going somewhere to use it.

I’m sure as hell not going to carry it around just because I have the right.

Bet51987 wrote:Because we were discussing ... in another area.

Aside from "pretending to be a man" and "shortcomings in another area" I can understand what you're saying as being sex-independent.

Bet51987 wrote: I felt enormous responsibility and if a gun toting jerk came into the playground, legal or not, I would call the police in a heartbeat and order everyone out of the pool and inside the building.

He can pretend to be a man somewhere else.

I'm not going to press the issue with you because of this....
Bee

Yet if a man came to your play ground with a bag of candy and a camera you would not have a problem.

d3jake wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Because we were discussing ... in another area.

Aside from "pretending to be a man" and "shortcomings in another area" I can understand what you're saying as being sex-independent.

I don't understand why you're focused on sex rather than the problem itself. But, whatever..

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:No it's not. Though not a mother I worked for the park department for four years teaching kids how to swim. I felt enormous responsibility and if a gun toting jerk came into the playground, legal or not, I would call the police in a heartbeat and order everyone out of the pool and inside the building

and this somehow entitles you to have a 'mothers' opinion. lol

Ferno wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:No it's not. Though not a mother I worked for the park department for four years teaching kids how to swim. I felt enormous responsibility and if a gun toting jerk came into the playground, legal or not, I would call the police in a heartbeat and order everyone out of the pool and inside the building

and this somehow entitles you to have a 'mothers' opinion. lol

I wouldn't use the word "entitle", but yes.

Bee

You know there used to be a day in this country where 90% of the population or even better, carried. Sure gunfights were common, but crime was almost non-existent.

Bet51987 wrote:I don't understand why you're focused on sex rather than the problem itself. But, whatever..

Bee

I "focus" on it simply because I hate the idea that it's only men that may have some reason for legally taking a firearm in public aside from being irresponsible. Also, as there are many others here focusing on the scenario that you presented I decided to question something else about what you have said. This way some detail of what you've said doesn't get left unquestioned in the name of paying attention to the "problem" you presented.

Spidey wrote:

Behemoth wrote:More importantly, Why is it that our right to bear arms at any venue is questionable?

But what’s the point? If you see me walking around on the street with my chain saw, you can figure I’m going somewhere to use it.

I’m sure as hell not going to carry it around just because I have the right.

Because you're not seeing the point.
An america without the support of our citizen's possesion of firearms is no america at all.
I believe i have the right to voice such a bold statement even though i don't have a firearm myself, The way people fight against personal liberties such as this is in the same form to me as if i was pushing christianity down someones throat.. kinda uncomfortable.

TBH i don't even feel like it should be up for debate as to whether people should even be questioned about these things especially if this man had not commited a crime.

I just don’t see the point of doing something just because you have the right. If I’m going to carry a rifle to a protest, it’s to make a statement, and that wasn’t a second amendment protest, so it sends the wrong message.

Unless the message is, you’re willing to kill someone over a health care debate.

Don’t confuse this stance with being against the second amendment.

Spidey wrote:I just don’t see the point of doing something just because you have the right. If I’m going to carry a rifle to a protest, it’s to make a statement, and that wasn’t a second amendment protest, so it sends the wrong message.

Unless the message is, you’re willing to kill someone over a health care debate.

Don’t confuse this stance with being against the second amendment.

I think the statement was intended to be a reminder to the president of why the second amendment exists- if the government strays too far away from actually representing the people, we can and will rise up, form a militia, and overthrow said government. Now, we're not nearly as close to that point as this guy would want us to believe, but it's good for our leaders to be reminded that they're supposed to be there to represent us... not to grab at power.

So, in other words, he was making a threat.

Bee

No, he was reminding \"them\".

A threat would have been pointing it at the President.

There is no need to \"read into\" what Snoop said. It was pretty straight forward, Bee.

Perhaps it was intended as that type of reminder, but personally I don't see that guy's interpretation as the crucial matter here. The primary issue to me is the way that kind of gun in a crowd is perceived by everyone else.

While I think Snoopy and others are right that this guy meant it to be a statement, I think it's an incredibly irresponsible one, simply because of the unknowns involved when powerful weapons are pulled out in sight of a crowd. Especially when political tensions are high.

He could have found a better way to make his statement. Given the reaction, I'm not even sure he helped his cause.

Says it all for me. Sorry, I'm a right winger, my apologies.

good link Alpha. It is sad that people like Bee would rather you be killed by some piece of human debris instead of being able to defend yourself. How having more concern for the criminal than the victim is the best course for our society.

I suppose that mentality will prevail until something happens and her cell phone doesn't scare the attacker away and the police show up in time to take her statement. After being caught, convicted and then paroled, Bee see's the guy approaching her once again in a lonely parking lot. Quick, pull out that cell phone once again !

Sounds like Ted’s next song…Dead Offender

Oh that’s right, I forgot.

Bettina wrote:Would you feel the same way about a man bringing an assault weapon to a childrens playground because he has the right?

I didn't take the time to follow the thread through, but I went a little further and no one had bothered to point out that any man has no point to make in bearing a firearm on school property when he is before no one but the children and their poor terrified mothers (:P). Bearing one in the vicinity of the decision-makers of our country when it is a historic and controversial topic could be said to at least be pertinent.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Bettina wrote:Would you feel the same way about a man bringing an assault weapon to a childrens playground because he has the right?

I didn't take the time to follow the thread through, but I went a little further and no one had bothered to point out that any man has no point to make in bearing a firearm on school property when he is before no one but the children and their poor terrified mothers (:P). Bearing one in the vicinity of the decision-makers of our country when it is a historic and controversial topic could be said to at least be pertinent.

That wasn't the topic of the meeting so it wasn't pertinent. The guy was a jerk and now I found out that he's a much bigger jerk.

Bee

I suppose that if someone is concerned enough about something their demonstration doesn't have to conform to their representative's topic schedule. Maybe that would be giving this guy too much credit (I would assume it probably would be), but I think that one of the troubling aspects of this new administration is a new way of polarizing opposition. The man ain't a loon for carrying an automatic weapon, and he ain't a loon for carrying an automatic weapon around politicians. He's a loon if he's a loon. I don't know him, so I couldn't say for sure.. For all I know he may just be super-concerned about the infringement of our second-amendment rights. If it weren't a political context I would be concerned...

Meh. I don't see much of a problem with it.

If the issue was that he had a gun too close to the president (and it doesn't look like he did, really), I'd say that's Secret Service's problem, not his. Behaving threateningly around the president isn't conducive to one's personal health, but if he wasn't, then meh.

The comparison to the guy on a playground in a similar situation doesn't hold water that well -- in that case, the weapon is really out of place and you're wondering what his intentions are. But this guy's intentions seemed pretty straightforward: to start conversation, to make a political point in a memorable way. I don't see any particular reason for anyone to suspect that he's dangerous.

And the point that it's dangerous to bring weapons into a volatile situation strikes me as kind of backwards. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that would make people more polite, not more violent.

I dunno. It seems like overkill, but it reads to me like an attempt to start conversation and make a point, not to intimidate. If his purpose had been unclear or he'd behaved threateningly, I'd think it in very poor judgement, but as described I can't get that worked up over it.

Thorne, please learn the difference between automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

Drakona wrote:...this guy's intentions seemed pretty straightforward: to start conversation, to make a political point in a memorable way. I don't see any particular reason for anyone to suspect that he's dangerous.

Really?? You must be considerably more comfortable around strangers brandishing automatic [Edit for Woodchip: or semi-automatic] weapons than I (and most people I know).

Drakona wrote:And the point that it's dangerous to bring weapons into a volatile situation strikes me as kind of backwards. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that would make people more polite, not more violent.

Depends on the person. While I agree most people tend to behave themselves in the presence of firearms, it doesn't take much to provoke others. Especially given a scenario with political tension.

Bet51987 wrote:The guy was a jerk and now I found out that he's a much bigger jerk.

Just so I'm clear, the guy with the firearm we're discussing is the same guy who preached the sermon about praying for Obama's death? I see a name in one article, but not the other.

Foil wrote:Just so I'm clear, the guy with the firearm we're discussing is the same guy who preached the sermon about praying for Obama's death? I see a name in one article, but not the other.

actually the guy did not do the preaching, but he does attend the church in question.

Foil you too need to learn the difference.

As to the church the guy belongs to and how it relects on the demonstrater, should be no different than the one Obama went to.

That's why I'm asking the question, chip; I wasn't making an assumption.

Thank you for the clarification, Cuda.

No Foil, I meant like Thorne you need to learn the difference between a automatic and a semi-automatic firearm.

Fine, chip. I'll fix it.

Either way, the point still stands.

A man openly displaying any firearm that deadly at a political event, especially in a situation with that level of political tension, is not only a poor idea, I'd say it sent exactly the opposite message he intended.

Foil wrote:Just so I'm clear, the guy with the firearm we're discussing is the same guy who preached the sermon about praying for Obama's death? I see a name in one article, but not the other.

No, He's not the preacher. The man in question was Christopher Broughton who is the same man with the assault rifle at the Obama rally. He attended the church service because he also wishes Obama to die.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... n0822.html

Foil wrote:A man openly displaying any firearm that deadly at a political event, especially in a situation with that level of political tension, is not only a poor idea, I'd say it sent exactly the opposite message he intended.

Yep. Nothing like showing the anti-gun people how stupid and dangerous some gun owners really are.

Bee

woodchip wrote:Thorne, please learn the difference between automatic and semi-automatic firearms.

Woodchip, please do ol' Thorne a favor and see the difference between "automatic" and full-automatic.

Foil wrote:

Drakona wrote:...this guy's intentions seemed pretty straightforward: to start conversation, to make a political point in a memorable way. I don't see any particular reason for anyone to suspect that he's dangerous.

Really?? You must be considerably more comfortable around strangers brandishing automatic [Edit for Woodchip: or semi-automatic] weapons than I (and most people I know).

Having watched the video, I wouldn't be any less comfortable around this guy and his AR-15 than around anybody else toting any sort of firearm. It was strapped to his back; it's not like he was pointing it at anyone. Frankly, I'm less comfortable somewhere like an airport, where I know everyone's disarmed, than out in public where I suspect some percentage of people are armed and someone might even carry openly.

While I agree most people tend to behave themselves in the presence of firearms, it doesn't take much to provoke others. Especially given a scenario with political tension.

In my experience, it takes a lot more to provoke others when there are weapons around than when there are not. It especially takes a lot more to provoke violence between third parties when they know there's someone present with a weapon.

Lothar wrote:I wouldn't be any less comfortable around this guy and his AR-15 than around anybody else toting any sort of firearm.

That's easy for you to say. But try explaining to a young mother sitting in a McDonald's with her two children why she shouldn't be concerned about the guy getting out of his car with an assault weapon.

People like these make other people uncomfortable and that, to me, is a variation of creating a disturbance and should be stopped.

Bee

No one has mentioned what would happen if someone else in the crowd pulled the weapon right off of the back of this yokel and decided to use it on others. It's hanging there, just strapped right on his back in a holster and easily accessible to someone that has a mind to take it by force.

so if you get uncomfortable by a guy dressed all in black with piercings and tatoo's all over his face and arms, wearing a spiked collar and a mohawk, should we outlaw him? or how he's dressed?

people get uncomfortable, they get uncomfortable around Gays, Blacks, Hispanics, White's, KKKer's Black Panthers, Gang Members and the list goes on and on and on, you cannot legislate to make people feel comfortable. many people carry guns because they feel uncomfortable around others so who's rights should we step on to make feel comfortable?

CUDA wrote:... you cannot legislate to make people feel comfortable....

BINGO!

tunnelcat wrote:No one has mentioned what would happen if someone else in the crowd pulled the weapon right off of the back of this yokel and decided to use it on others. It's hanging there, just strapped right on his back in a holster and easily accessible to someone that has a mind to take it by force.

I tried that argument on someone once…

Go ahead…try it.

Foil wrote:

Drakona wrote:...this guy's intentions seemed pretty straightforward: to start conversation, to make a political point in a memorable way. I don't see any particular reason for anyone to suspect that he's dangerous.

Really?? You must be considerably more comfortable around strangers brandishing automatic [Edit for Woodchip: or semi-automatic] weapons than I (and most people I know).

Yeah, I guess. It's just hardware. Machines aren't inherently dangerous. People are.

Back when I was commuting to college, I daily drove along a highway with a speed limit of 50 MPH and no median. I remember thinking at the time how odd it was that with barely a flick of the wrist, I could easily suicide murder any of the strangers passing by a few feet away -- and they me. I didn't know anything about these people. I didn't know how stable they were, or even how well they were paying attention. Every day I passed within a few feet of likely death at the hands of strangers . . . and nobody thought anything of it!

Guns are like cars, that way. Of course folks with cars are dangerous. But you never think about it, because the vast, vast majority of folks are simply not murderous. Ever seen someone scream and flip off another driver on a two lane road high in the mountains? He could run the object of his rage right off the road into a ravine, and yet it never even occurs to the other driver he might be in danger. Ever see a pedestrian, standing in front of a running car, yell like crazy at a driver? Never occurs to him he might be in danger. Because he's not.

Now, if you see someone with a car behave in a dangerous way, then it's time to get scared. And you should. And if you see someone behave in a threatening way, or show up in one where they shouldn't--say, on a playground--then it's time to get really scared.

So guns are like that. Folks who have them are not murderous, and are generally as safe as other drivers to yell at .

It's folks behaving dangerously--or especially folks behaving like threats--who are worth being scared of. Even if all they're carrying is a toilet plunger.

Foil wrote:

Drakona wrote:And the point that it's dangerous to bring weapons into a volatile situation strikes me as kind of backwards. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems to me that would make people more polite, not more violent.

Depends on the person. While I agree most people tend to behave themselves in the presence of firearms, it doesn't take much to provoke others. Especially given a scenario with political tension.

Yeah, well. It takes an awful lot to provoke a law abiding citizen into becoming a killer. You have to do a lot more than get them really angry. Generally you have to threaten someone's life.

Foil wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:The guy was a jerk and now I found out that he's a much bigger jerk.

Just so I'm clear, the guy with the firearm we're discussing is the same guy who preached the sermon about praying for Obama's death? I see a name in one article, but not the other.

Attends, I guess. Doesn't really matter to me -- separate topic. People who think I'm insane for believing I hear the voice of God still take advice from me on other topics .

Drakona wrote:Back when I was commuting to college, I daily drove along a highway with a speed limit of 50 MPH and no median. I remember thinking at the time how odd it was that with barely a flick of the wrist, I could easily suicide murder any of the strangers passing by a few feet away -- and they me. I didn't know anything about these people. I didn't know how stable they were, or even how well they were paying attention. Every day I passed within a few feet of likely death at the hands of strangers . . . and nobody thought anything of it!

That is an INCREDIBLY good point. With the only caveat being that it is not the primary purpose of a car to cause damage, while it IS the primary purpose of a gun. But still, even granting that, VERY good point.