Is the anger in American politics edging towards violence?

[Bman505]

About a dozen protesters carrying guns gathered this week, not far from a building where President Barack Obama was talking to the public about his plans to reform U.S. healthcare.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/POLITICS/08/21/mann.obama.protests/art.obama.gun.pool.jpg
One of them had a rifle slung over his shoulder, a handgun in a holster and bullets in his back pocket.

Last week, a man protested outside another Obama healthcare meeting with a gun strapped to his thigh.

It may be hard to believe but it wasn't illegal.

The meetings were held in parts of the U.S. that restrict concealed weapons but allow them to be carried freely if they're in plain sight.

A small number of activists make a point of exercising that right.

The right has limits. The Secret Service can bar anyone with a gun from entering the buildings where the president was speaking.

The protesters stayed far enough away to avoid trouble, though one man was arrested for trespassing and police found a gun in his car.

In both places, the protesters said they opposed the president's plans for healthcare but meant him no harm.

"An armed society is a polite society," said William Kostric. Should people be allowed to own guns? Sound off below

The healthcare reform plan has sparked the angriest opposition that the president has encountered since taking office.

Most of the ire has been directed at lawmakers, who have also been meeting voters to discuss the plan. They've been interrupted, insulted and threatened.

Obama doesn't attend those meetings but he's hardly overlooked. A protester outside one meeting held up a sign saying "Death to Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids."

Is the president in danger?

When it comes to armed protesters standing outside a building while the president is inside, a Secret Service spokesman told CNN "of course not."

But Americans remember the assassinations of presidents from Abraham Lincoln to John Kennedy and the attack that wounded Ronald Reagan.

Now, Barack Obama's trips across the country to talk about health may be attracting people with guns.

It's an odd and unsettling thing.
This story from http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/21/mann.obama.protests/

[Jizzle]

you can read this same story told 20 different ways. it all depends on who reports it. media bias is extremely prevelant concerning this story.

IE. "It may be hard to believe but, it wasn't illegal". Push for more gun control much there CNN? Lol, OH MY GOD, YOU MEAN PEOPLE CAN CARRY A WEAPON! IN PUBLIC! WITHOUT HIDING IT! SOMEBODY HAS TO DO SOMETHING, WE HAVE TO MAKE MORE LAWS! THIS IS OBVIOUSLY VERY DANGEROUS! THINK OF THE CHILDEREN!!! Sarcasm off.

And also ignorance concerning fire arms in general.

IE. An AR is not a rifle. bullets in his back pocket? He was carrying bullets in his back pocket? I highly doubt that. He might have been carrying ammunition, or cartriges. But, probably not bullets, unless he was on his way from the store to his reloading bench, which i highly doubt because of the unavailability of reloading supplies atm.

If you are arrested for tresspassing how can the police search your car? And if you where tresspassing what bearing does having a gun in your car have on the situation? More scare tactics.

Why do they lump in people that carry guns with the people who carry signs that say "Death to Obama" et? Where the people that carry those signs openly carrying fire arms? If they where I promise that this news story would have mentioned that. So, they misguide the reader by putting two entirely different groups of individual in the same lot.

"Is the president in danger?" Are you kidding me? Yes the president is in danger each and every day. That's why the secret service has a job. That's why they are there. That is the presidents version of open carry. this is nothing more than an attempt at reverse terrorism. "hey guys lets scare the american public into letting us get rid of guns, that'll work won't it?" Sad really.

Holy crap the SS spokesman was on the same page as we are on this. Armed protesters outside a building that the president is speaking outside of doesn't endanger the president any more than he already is. But, I would be willing to bet it makes him that much safer.

"But Americans remember the assassinations of presidents from Abraham Lincoln to John Kennedy and the attack that wounded Ronald Reagan." So, they ask an SS spokesman what he thinks then discredit him by saying that they and america know better because they remember other presidential assassinations. They are appealing to vanity. Saying that we as americans should know better.

His trips are attracting people with guns. Sure, I'll agree with that. Or how about, His trip across america is attracting media attention to people with guns. Is that maybe more accurate? I went to the republican national convention last year in virginia open carrying. No body said nothing. And there where a lot of people there, politicians and otherwise. No coverage. But, if i walk on a street outside a building that has Obama inside it I'm a national news story. Interesting huh?

Guns have nothing to do with it. It's about power. BTW look who reported on this "news" CNN. They treat america like they are all a bunch of retarded sheep, which they arn't. NUF SAID.

[Chuck]

The stories I have seen on this issue are vague on how close the man carrying his AR was to the president.
In my personal experience there is no way he would be allowed to occupy a place where he could even see the president while carrying a rifle.
Does anyone know where this protest was in relation to where the president was at the time?

My suspicions are that none of the persons carrying guns had any access to the president or any dignitaries or the routes they traveled. If that is indeed the case, there was no danger to the president from anything the media is trying to make of this.

If the media was being truthful on this issue, the story would be much shorter. Something like those human interest headlines: "Man enjoys his 2nd Amendment freedom in the Arizona sun."

The secret service and the local law enforcement had the right take on it. No crime was being committed, watch it if there are no higher priorities, but don't intefere with it.

[Jizzle]

according to federal law. any area where the president is, is under federal jurisdiction very similar to that of say a military installation. IE you can't have weapons et et et. But, that only applies to the building he's in or the immediate area around the president. For instance a park or what not if the president is giving a speech outside. and the SS have jurisdiction over that area.

These individuals where not inside the building where the president was. they where outside of it. They did not enter. And no the didn't have access to anyone important.

I would just avoid seeing the president if it meant that i had to disarm. Personally it's not a big enough deal for me to see him or meet him that I would put my gun away if i had a choice.

[sinclair]

While I found this discussion every bit as entertaining as the press coverage, just like the press, you guys are either blind or just can't see well.

(A) A black fellow carrying a rifle openly will probably be less noticeable these days than a WASP with the same weapon and under the same conditions.

(B) Look again. What you can see of him is that he is well dressed, more so than the bystanders around him. Very clean shaven and is that an alternate carry for Special Ops, I do believe ? That guy has a professional bearing without even trying.

(C) Look again at the weapon he is carrying ? Looks sorta like a Mall-Ninja tricked out AR 15, huh ? Wrong ! But a good disguise for the gun. Look real close at the ejector and the big square thingy just under the rear of the ejection port. Now look at the top picture of another view of those features:

http://www.teppojutsu.com/458.htm

You don't go to Joe's gun shop and get one of those. Before 2005, they were experimental and you had to make your own ammo. It was the 458 wildcat. Even today there are only two sources for the standard ammo, one shown below at $3.00 per round:

https://www.dakotaammo.net/shop/product_info.php?cPath=21_127&products_id=241

The non-standard ammo is not available to the public, and the explosive stuff is only under military contract. Even the standard ammo will stop a Mack truck.

Looks like a recoil arresting piston in the short stock. That would make sense cause the 458 SOCOM is a bitch to fire with the heavy or explosive loads.

The only thing I would speculate on is that my bet is for sure, that ain't an average gun toting John Q. Public. NOT EVEN CLOSE !

[Jizzle]

so what exactly are you saying? you are being more vague than the media.

[Colt 45]

I don't know if y'all caught this on MSNBC (MSBS). This video was edited to hide the fact the guy with the AR was black, and are saying that these protesters with guns were white supremacists and had racial issues with the president. Very shabby journalism, if you can call it that.

Max


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

[Jizzle]

lol. and you notice how they have a black guy sort of spear heading the conversation. who're the racists really?

[sinclair]

Thanks for the video,Colt 45. The press can be relied upon to pursue their agenda no matter how stupid they look.

I have been pausing the video to get a better look at the gun. Looks to be a slab-sided SOCOM PSD, but I cannot get a good focus on the sight mechanics. The other side of the weapon would be even more interesting, if the selector switch could be viewed. If I am even close, then for once in their life, MSNBC got something right. If anything could be considered an assault weapon, the PSD is, with tungsten cored ammo it could stop an armored car. With the right load out, it could also function as a mini-RPG. If I can see the possibility, you can bet the SS guys did as well. If they did not interfere with this guy at all, it was because he is one of them.
Speculation can now run wild.

Sorry Jizzle, I am being vague for a reason. But think just a bit. When you carry, what is the reason you carry and what factors are important to you? What is your responsibility to the public ? If you owned something really assault capable, would you carry that ? If so, why? Well, maybe that's a bit vague as well. If you owned an RPG, would you carry that for self defense ?

[Jizzle]

the reason that they didn't interfere is because they had not legal option too. as for whether he was SS or not,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92DVGwhZOu4&feature=channel_page

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/18/obama.protest.rifle/index.html

enjoy. don't jump off the deep end.

[sinclair]

enjoy. don't jump off the deep end.

Now that is funny. Good Laugh.

But too late. We all jumped off the deep end on 2 August, but nobody noticed because that sort of SHTF scenario is too boring and puts everybody to sleep.

But I will let it go. Making an observation that has logical derivatives counter to public opinion is fun for me. I know that public inertia prevents most from registering such things. Still, it is fun to watch.

[Jizzle]

as long as you get a kick out of it, go for it. LOL.

[Colt 45]

And a related story...

The Media Gets It Wrong, Again, On Guns (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/20/john-lott-gun-obama-town-hall/)

Max

[Bman505]

MSNBC probably went the farthest on all this with some truly remarkable claims on Tuesday, August 18. Showing the clip of the anonymous black man carrying the "assault rifle," but editing it so that one was not able to see the man's race, Contessa Brewer said: "But also there are questions whether this has a racial overtone. I mean here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists." Another person on the same show noted the"anger about a black person being president" and about "the black man becoming president. You know we see these hate groups rising up."

They shouldn't be able to get away with this!

[Jizzle]

no they shouldn't be able to get away with this. there are actual hard working americans losing their jobs every day because of the economy and you have "journalists" and i use the term losely, who can outright lie to everyone and still keep their job.