To anyone worried about the gun nuts:

[one_true_leroy]

Realize how strong a message this is. President Obama is NOT afraid of the fringes. He's not refusing to debate head-on. He refuses to abrogate the Constitutional right of even his most vociferous opponents. Compare that to W, whose willingness to revoke habeas corpus, free speech, fourth amendment protection against searches (eg wiretapping) stands in direct contrast to Obama. At least one support of the right wing opposition platform has been kicked out from under them: Obama is NOT a "gun grabber" and any argument to the contrary is now nipped in the bud. Would anyone, particularly liberals, have been able to do the same with W? No, and the current situations point to a President far more respectful of Constitutional rights than W. Should we worry? YES! Everyday. But not about the guys and gals with guns on open display outside of venues. They have more eyes on them than a fly and they know it. They show up expecting, as would have been true a year ago, to be gulag-ed, and when it doesn't happen, when the President stands and delivers his message, engaging the opposition, they and their ilk leave, scatching their heads and wondering if perhaps Beck, Hannity, et al, might be misguided, misinformed. They expect to be a martyr, and instead go home with a sunburn and sore feet from standing outside all day. You and I would have been arrested a year ago for the same.

I believe that Obama has made a powerful statement about the return of Rights in this country. Rest assured, those armed civilians have a policeman's eyes and a sniper's 30-06 on them, and Obama's fearlessness inspires me. Am I concerned for him? Yes. But people exercising a legal right isn't what I'm afraid of, and neither is our President. For him to be nonchalant represents a paradigm shift in government.

I am a CCW holder and own many guns. However, I only carry when I'm in the woods (you may have read about the recent wild dog mauling that happened one county over from me. These feral packs are not uncommon in N Ga, and I've had to use my gun before to keep a pack at bay.) I support the 2nd admendment sensibly, and now have proof that our President does, too. Next time some right-wing shill forwards some tired cannard about gun grabbing liberals, send them a picture of a man with a pistol and an AR-15 peacefully and legally protesting outside a town hall meeting with Obama and a picture of unarmed protesters being corralled (or detained) during a W speech. Make them draw the contrast. Make them realize we liberals are not denying rights, we're expanding them. The right to bear arms for self defence (even if against imaginary threats, or, as I believe is the real point, to exercise a right to see how far the gov't will breach upon that right) AND the right to live in wellness, with universal access to health care.

While there is still much work to be done, Obama has given us much to be proud of. His quiet respect for the rights of those who disagree with him should be an example that we can use to counter the shill rhetoric of our compatriots, no matter how misinformed or misguided we feel they are). We don't win when we disarm those that oppose us. We win when they lay down their arms and join us, and that goes for both literal and metaphorical arms.

Peace, love, and waffles,
leroy.

[cliffordu]

1. Nice post, Leroy.

K&R

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Well said, and what I expect to see now

are a section where they can stand wiht their guns, safe, distance... but nobody is doing what they wanted. Exactomundo

[sharesunited]

4. Instead of free speech zones, free fire zones?

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. free weapons zones

if you can listen to the SS retired officer on Rachel Maddow, when he went into what theoretically they could do... readying between lines that is what he meant. Expand the security perimeters to a mile or more... well my ears went... you are not saying this without having had a talk with your former compadres, even if off the record.

[pnorman]

23. Bush had his "Free Speech Zones"

Obama should have a "Second Amendment Zone", but located a prudent distance away from the event in question.

pnorman

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. It is not going to be THAT Official, but it is comming

the SS has ways of setting security perimeters, and trust me that is coming.

The last thing they want to give these boys is the excuse they need to go to a court of law... and you know they would, in a heart beat...

When I listened to the SS retired officer and he said that in theory they could increase the perimeters I went... fuck yeah, that is the way this is gonna get handled. Also if you do that, and keep them well away, you also reduce the number of snipers tasked to them.

[morillon]

3. Excellent points.

I worry about him all the time, but I think he knows what he's doing. He has outmaneuvered his opponents amazingly well thus far, IMO.

I agree -- wild dogs are a big problem in the rural South. We've got 'em on this side of Georgia, too. The only time I ever got grounded as a kid was when a friend and I took off on a long walk in the miles and miles of wilderness behind our house and didn't tell anyone where we were going. We initially insisted that having my family's big German Shepherd with us was plenty enough protection, but my parents pointed out that although she might've given us a few seconds' warning that something bad was approaching, all three of us would've been mauled to death if one of those huge wild dog packs had found us.

They are bad news, for sure.

[one_true_leroy]

10. No kidding!

About 6 years ago, I was horseback riding with some friends north of Dahlonega (sp?). The stable owner (who also owned most of the land we were on) was with us. We had noticed dogs sporadically on the trail, but paid them no mind. When we stopped for lunch, we quickly found out that the dogs were actually a pack of maybe seven. We were on the bank of a small river, and the dogs had formed a semi-circle trapping us against the river. When they closed on us, the owner and I shot and killed four of them and the rest fled. We rode back in a tight group, and carried one of the carcasses (to have it tested for rabies... silly in retrospect, but seemed right at the time. Tests were negative.) Cute and cuddly they ain't, and while I'm not deterred from the beauty of Appalachia, I camp with more than just my superior intellect and opposable thumbs to protect me.

[morillon]

11. They can be incredibly efficient hunters.

I told my dad at the time that surely we would've heard them barking before they got to us, and he said, nope, barking's what dogs do to warn you off their territory. When they're hunting you, which is what it sounds like was going on with you and your friends, they're usually very quiet.

Y'all were lucky to be armed. Getting out of there with all your horses and yourselves intact would've been dicey, for sure. I've known a few horses (including one very bitchy Shetland pony) who would probably try to run off the dogs and stomp them, but many would freak out when surrounded by predators.

My parents' farm is on a dirt road, and those wild dogs have been known even to go after the guys who run the road scraping machinery. They've learned the hard way to use the restroom at the country store up the road instead of going off into the woods. One guy barely escaped with his life after taking a little side trip. They chased him out of the woods and were trying to climb up on the machinery to get at him even after he'd started it moving again.

I've always loved dogs, and I feel sorry for the poor creatures who get dumped out in backwoods areas and end up joining packs or becoming food for them. But I totally understand that people have to protect themselves.

[one_true_leroy]

14. And that's what is so terrible...

I've lived with dogs my entire life. My best friend is right here beside me now, snoozin' away and chasing dream bunnies. Believe me, I was sick to my stomach for days after. I've been hunting since I was a kid, so it wasn't the killing of an animal, per se, but that it was dogs, not even wolves, but honest dogs, abandoned by people and left to revert to their instinct. It wasn't the dogs that I wanted to shoot, and it broke my heart to do it.

[morillon]

15. I understand completely.

People drive out to the country and drop off their unwanted dogs because they (incorrectly) think it's more humane than taking them to the animal shelter. I've seen that happen all my life, and it never fails to break my heart. Three of our four dogs were strays left at the edge of the woods by their previous families.

It would kill me to have to shoot dogs, for exactly the reasons you so vividly described, but in that situation, I would have done the same thing. Some people and horses would've been hurt or killed if you hadn't done it.

[one_true_leroy]

17. Yeah...

I don't think I've ever had a dog (including my loudly snoring one) that didn't randomly show up and adopt me. My parents have five dogs, every one of them a stray who showed up one day, and that's how it's been my whole life. That anyone would abandon any of the dozens of dogs I have known and loved dumbfounds me. I used to try to believe that they weren't abandoned, but had merely gotton lost. In one case, that turned out to be true, but as I got older and wiser on the human scale, I learned that some people wouldn't know a good dog if it jumped in their lap and licked their face. My current hound was found in the woods (abandoned? Strayed? Lost?) and it kills me to think that the most gentle loving creature I have ever known might have, in a parallel universe, become a snarling man hunter like those I had to kill.

[oldtime dfl_er]

6. I'll tell you what worries me

The creepy sick Repukes who go on TV defending this threatening activity, condoning it under the false aegis of "they're just exercising their Constitutional rights", as they grin and salivate.

[one_true_leroy]

7. Which is related to my point...

Those shills are the same ones screeching previously about a liberal gun grab. No one in this administration, as far as my non-TV self knows, has challenged those rights, and that fact strips away one of the hallowed GOP holy trinity of talking points: God, Guns, and Gold. Clearly, Obama has respected the Constitutional rights of citizens, so when these blowhards bloviate about the 2nd admendment, the Obama admin just nods its head and shows that it does respect it. What I want is for some journalist to point this out, ESPECIALLY in contrast to W's policies.

In addition, the economy appears to be at least stabilizing, so that argument is lost, so what we are seeing is a point by point refutation of the GOP platform. I wish the Obama admin would be more aggressive than they have been, but I am very proud to see how they have quietly progressed, laying out their position and following through, without flinching. While I disagree with some of the compromises, they have stood as a counterexample to the most extreme caricatures presented by the GOP as generalizing democrats, and I admire this administration more now than when I voted for them.

What I really want to see, and it's been too rare, is people pointing out the absurdities of the GOP fearmongering.

[morillon]

12. Yeah, Gingrey was a total tool about it on Hardball. n/t

[lib_wit_it]

19. Replace "grin" with "smirk."

[immoderate]

8. I'm with you.

The guns that we see are on posers. I'm not worried about those guys. They won't get close enough. (Though they could shoot each other.)

It's the lunatics they are inciting that is the problem. And one of their retinue of abortion doctor slayer wannabes might step up. One such event (and I'm assuming it won't be successful) and the protesters guns will disappear.

--imm

[Contrary1]

9. Thank you for you post...

I've got a very bad feeling tonight, and your message helped.

[comrade snarky]

13. My concern is not for Obama. He's safe.

I'm concerned because I think these chuckle heads who feel the need to pack at a political event are exactly the idiots to do something stupid and hurt someone or more likely make someone in law enforcement paint the sidewalk with their small brains.

For me it's not a 2nd Amendment issue or a RKBA. They may have the right to bring guns but it's still astoundingly stupid to do so and anyone who would is probably exactly the kind of person who shouldn't have the option.

I'm concerned because the more press they give these morans the more likely it is to attract even more loony pinheads who will be itching for a chance to use a weapon. If this keeps escalating I honestly believe some one will end up getting more holes than they were born with. Problem is I'm not sure how to end it though without inflaming the very idiots I want to stop. Maybe each one needs to see all the red dots on their buddies.

Even though I'm not anti-gun I don't see much to be happy about here.



:Edited for typo

[one_true_leroy]

16. I certainly see your point.

I'm just not worried about open carry. I'm willing to bet that each of them has their own special red dot on them, and it takes far less time to pull a trigger than to draw a gun from a holster. To wit, their threat is hollow. They know they can't draw, so they rely on fear and intimidation. Hell, it wouldn't surprise to learn that their guns are unloaded and are for show. When we stare them down without flinching, when we show up to debate them, when we refuse to let hollow, absurd threats to deter us, we gain the argument. Don't mistake me for naive- I know that there is crazy in the world, and some of them have guns. But some guy who shows up to protest OUTSIDE with a gun is a) trying to showcase himself as some RW martyr ("all I was doing was exercising my rights as a patriot and they arrested me.") and b) showing their own fear ("fox tells me that Obama is going to ship me to a FEMA camp, but we'll see about that.") In either case, I'm just not worried about them, and the admin's response has stripped the reasoning from both arguments. These guys showed up thinking liberals would all run for the hills, scared for their lives, and when that didn't happen, just just looked silly, not dangerous

[comrade snarky]

44. Well, that's true

I'm sure they were quite surprised when no one saw them and ran away. I'm proud of our side for not being intimidated.

And they do look damn silly.

[Apollo11]

18. I don't agree that it should be legal to take a loaded gun to a peaceful protest. period.

So therefore I disagree that these people should be allowed to show up at Town Hall events with firearms. Even if they stay on the sidewalk. It should be illegal and they should be arrested. It's about protecting the rights and freedoms of unarmed civilians to walk down the street and attend public events without being intimidated or feeling that their life could be in danger.

As a British citizen who lives in western Europe - I would hesitate to take my wife on vacation to the USA. Why would we spend our precious vacation time in a country where people are openly carrying assault weapons? - not in the woods, but on the street!

The second amendment was just that - an amendment. If Americans were smart they would go back and amend the amendment.

[one_true_leroy]

20. I understand.

Fortunately or not, what they are doing is not illegal, and Obama really pulls the absurdity of their actions into the light by ignoring them. Read my post above about why I feel that their threat is hollow. In many states (eg my home state of Georgia) it is illegal to carry at a public event... even nonpolitical ones. If Obama were to, however, disarm these people in states where it is legal, he will be excoriated for running afoul of the 2nd, 10th, and, possibly, 1st admendments. Simply stated, his approach debunks a whole tangle of RW caricatures of his admin, and liberals in general, and exposes a GOP that has resorted to hollow, trite threats. Not a single one of the protesters has been a threat. Firstly, none has made a direct physical threat to anyone. They have been peaceful and law-abiding. Obama's respect for that has been commedable. Secondly, they stand one careless gesture away from a sniper's bullet, and they know it. Their posturing is just that, hollow and vapid. When we refuse to be intimidated, we gain the debate.

Please don't be afraid, certainly not of hollow threats.

[Swamp Rat]

21. The threats of which you speak may be hollow, but they distract law enforcement from more serious,

potentially real threats from assassins and/or nut cases.

The idiots carrying their guns, whether to intimidate, express one of their many rights, or what have you, are creating a serious public hazard.

If they keep it up, there will likely be an accident, especially if more show up with weapons. One of these days, some dumb ass is going to forget and reach for his weapon, perhaps just to adjust the holster, etc. and a few snipers will decorate the sidewalk with his brains.

[one_true_leroy]

35. I definitely see them as more of a threat to themselves.

If they are legally capable of open carry, they are legally culpable for the results. Considering that there is not only red dots, but also no telling how many cameras, trained on them, it's their call to be stupid. But the RW is itching like ivy to have a Ruby Ridge or Waco as dome rallying cry, and Obama's not giving it to them.

As for the distraction, consider that there are easily hundreds of officers protecting the event. Even with a few dedicated to the open carries, there's plenty remaining. My grandfather was a police chief and worked presedential details for Carter, Reagan, and Bush I. All officers under his command would be on duty, and many officers were borrowed from neighboring counties. That's a couple hundred locals, in addition to Secret Service, FBI, et al. Many of them are plainclothes and dispersed in the crowd. If you go to one of these events, you will have been in arms reach of an armed officer at pretty much all times, just that you're unaware of it. Outside the venue, you've got sniper teams on EVERY building, scanning both the streets and buildings. If a window opens- red dot.

In short, I have faith that not only is Obama well-protected, but so is the populace.

[proteus_lives]

22. Great post!

I agree 100%

While I wouldn't bring a weapon to a protest or Presidential speech, I can't join in with the chorus of "ban it!" I think that Obama must take a stand and not give into fear and intimidation. The SS and police have his back and those openly carry are being watched at these events and I can't think of a legitimate reasons to deny the choice of carrying a weapon to a person who is not abusing that right.

While I may disagree with the reasoning behind it, these people might feel like they are making a political protest. And I don't want Obama acting like bushco and creating "zones" of any kind. We can't deny the rights of those who disagree with us. No matter how odious their beliefs might be. If they are within the law, we shouldn't say boo.

As a fellow CCW holder and gun-owner, I also worry about the slippery slope when it comes to gun laws. Restrict gun rights in one place and it becomes easier to restrict them elsewhere. And the Democrats will pay for any gun-grabbing move when the elections come around again.

So make fun of them, rant about them, counter-protest them but don't ban them. It will end badly for everyone. I have notice a tendency (and even an eagerness) in some liberal circles and on DU to throw the 2nd Amendment under the bus. I've said it before and I'll say it again, real Democrats, liberals and progressives support the right to keep and bear arms!

[MadHound]

24. And what will you say when one of these idiots snaps,

And shoots the President or surrounding innocents in his bid for immortality? Will you still be happy that Obama is "protecting Constitutional rights?"

You don't fuck around with either unstable explosives or people, both are going to go off at some point or another.

[kentuck]

27. Absolutely right MadHound.

We cannot ignore that fact. Everybody with a gun is not a rational and sane individual. It is dangerously naive to think that.

[one_true_leroy]

37. That's extremely unlikely.

What's far more likely is that the gun toter is shot and killed. These guys know that. Look at the man in AZ: unless he is a left shooter (very rare), his pistol is on his off side, and not holstered for cross draw. His AR15 is slung for carry, not for deployment. Compound this with the fact that it is illegal for him to carry with the safeties off and, at least as far as I know, with a round chambered (and you can bet that at least one police officer has ascertained this). Even if that man was a gun ninja, he's not getting a round off, and he damn well knows. Like I said, I'd be surprised if he was even carrying bullets.

As far as the crazy factor: I'm not naive. I've got faith in the system. Anyone remotely erractic has a fusilade of bullets waiting for them. Sure, there are the Taxi Driver glory seekers, but they aren't going to be the ones standing around with their guns on display while waving a placard. No the crazy is going to be a suicide bomber, a bum rush militia style attack with vehicles. Make no mistake: while I clearly support the RTKBA, I believe militias themselves... nongovernmental entities practicing to kill lots of people... should be illegal as a threat to democracy.

[kentuck]

42. Like they shot John Hinckley?

When he shot Reagan? I wonder what Reagan would think about this?

[one_true_leroy]

43. Hinckley wasn't carrying in to open like these guys.

It's a different threat when the assault is hidden until the last moment. These lone wolfers are a terrible threat and require much vigilance to prevent. Those guys on the sidewalk far from anywhere that they can even see the President, while legally carrying holstered weapons and holding signs while standing elbow to elbow with police officers are not a threat. They are attention seekers, posturing for their Spacebook or Myface page so that their buddies can see. When the liberals don't run away screaming in panic, but instead come out for debates, then the posers look silly and, yes, cowardly. I'm not defending the action: it's stupid and crass to an extreme. I mean, those guys are one itchy butt away from the pine box. But as long as they are legally stupid, I say keep an eye on them and a few cops near them. If these guys would rather stand around being silly in the summer heat rather than contributing their POV to the meeting, rather than actually engaging in debate, it's one less screamer in the town hall.

[kentuck]

25. Only one little problem.

Everybody that has a gun is not a sane and rational individual. Some of them are crazy.

[piratefish08]

26. well said! not to mention, a year ago you could be arrested for wearing the wrong tshirt.

[endarkenment]

28. bookmarking for after people start getting shot. nt.

[DailyGrind51]

29. "Second Amendmentists" should be considered a secular religion!

Some people can own a firearm, tuck it away on an upper closet shelf or in a locked cabinet and that's pretty much it. Others, however, consider guns the "be-all and end-all" of their existence, believing the Second Amendment analogous to "sacred scriptures".

[Ganja Ninja]

30. They don't worry me for the moment.

But I am considering getting my concealed carry permit. But I generally follow one rule when it comes to gun carry. If I feel I need to take a gun somewhere then I probably shouldn't go there.

[one_true_leroy]

39. For me, the CCW was an issue of where I was allowed to carry.

In GA, you have to have a CCW to carry in state parks. I frequent the backcountry, often miles from the front gates (and any helpful people) and the gun is there for rabid animals and feral dogs, a lesson I learned years ago. I never carry into, for example, the check in station, gift shop, drive in campgrounds, or anywhere people are hanging out. It stays in the truck until I 'head out.' I always let the ranger know I will be carrying, and specifically why I am carrying. Other than that, I go to the range every 4-6 weeks to practice and the rest of the time, it remains safe and secured at home. I've never carried in town or while shopping, etc. I'm saying all this because you should consider the wheres and whys of a CCW. If it is a vague fear that somewhere you just might happen to run into a thug, it's usually irrational, and carrying will probably increase your fear (any responsible carry is acutely aware of their gun at all times, and this heightened awareness, while useful, may make you more nervous if vague fear is what compelled you to carry in the first place.) OTOH, if you have concrete, legitimate concerns (you must frequent high crime areas, roving packs of dogs, etc) by all means, carry legally, realizing that being legal is just the beginning of your responsibilities. You MUST train regularly and frequently with your gun. You must educate yourself on it's handling and safety. You must ensure that it is secure at ALL times, whether it is on you or home. Finally, you must know the laws of your state and any reciprocity laws by heart, chapter and verse. Be aware, Ganja Ninja, that a firearm turns a misdemeanor possession into a felony with about five years penalty. I apologize for making an inference from your screen name, but it's something to consider.

[Bandit]

31. Who are you concealing your gun from in the woods?

You think the "wild dogs" know the difference?

[one_true_leroy]

38. Tee hee!

In GA, you have to have a CCW to carry in state parks. AFAIK, open carry is not allowed. Also, I carry it in my truck when in the boonies- many years ago, I stopped to help a motorist who'd hit and mortally wounded a deer, and waiting for the police officer to show up (20 miles outside of nowhere) and end the deer's extreme suffering while we stood by helpless was a terrible experience and not one I'd like to repeat. The CCW allows me to keep it legally out of plain sight. I'm very aware that guns make some people anxious, so in situations where I might encounter people... on a trail, at a gas station, I prefer for it to be out of sight so that people regard me as just another guy out and about.

[ellie]

32. I don't understand

this love of guns. Not at all.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Odin2005]

34. The Wing-Nut terrorists WANT us to be afraid, if we are afraid THEY WIN!

That is what terrorism is all about, scaring people into behaving how you want them to behave.

[aikoaiko]

36. Other than overselling the President as not being a "gun grabber" I agree with you.

I don't really like that phrase because its mostly used metaphorically for taking away gun owning options, he still supports banning some guns -- very popular guns and gun accessories -- used for self-defense and recreational/competitive shooting.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

But like I said, otherwise, I agree with you.

[one_true_leroy]

40. I hear ya.

I am disappointed in the AWB issue, but in that case, I don't think it matters what the WH wants, the democrats in Congress will remember what happened last time (Newt and his republican revolution) and kill it in commitee. Now, I support some safeguards that are not NRA sanctioned (and I'm not a member). I would like to see mandatory safety classes before owning a gun or earning a CCW, just like for hunting or driving. I want to see loopholes closed at gun shows. Without banning so-called 'assault weapons' (I gather from your post that you know how absurd this is), I would like to see a permit system for high capacity magazines, say anything more than 10 or so rounds must have permit. So many of the terrible massacres were perpetuated by new gun owners who fleeced the system to acquire guns under illegal pretenses, and I'd like to see these loopholes closed. I sometimes feel more tempered than other gun advocates- I'm willing to jump through hoop after hoop, as a perfectly law abiding, safe adult. I'm willing to take, say, a weekly class for six weeks before earning a CCW or even owning a handgun. I'm willing to have a permit for specialized equipment. And (get ready to flame, because this one is hugely unpopular with NRA) I'm willing to have a license and registry system, at least for handguns. I register my car with no fear of government seizure, and, if part of greater system that keeps guns in the hands of responsible owners and out of the hands of monsters (and the guys we are currently debating about are not monsters), I'd be willing to register my handgun with a "signature casing" submitted for a national database. Just like I have no plans to run over anyone with my truck, and therefore no fear of having the government linking me an it in a database, I will never use my guns illegally, and am equally unconcerned with my handgun being noted by the gov't.

[SlipperySlope]

45. Probably .308, not .30-06

If there are snipers trained on the open carriers, they would be more likely to be armed with .223 or .308 rifles than .30-06.

[blogslut]

46. That may be

However, tempers are running high at these events and when loaded weapons are added to the mix, that raises the possibility that someone is going to get hurt.

[old mark]

47. Hey I am a "gun nut" and a lifelong lefty. I regard the anti-gun liberals as assholes

who should wake up and live in the real world.

But hey, that's just me.....along with millions of other Democrats.

mark