Posted on 08/17/2009 4:03:17 PM PDT by NetLiberty
PHOENIX (AP) - About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday—the latest incidents in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president. Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
You have to restrict your rights when defense and safety is involved. You have no right to carry near the president.
X = 3000 miles.
>You have to restrict your rights when defense and safety is involved.
Perhaps; but such a self-restriction is called deference and is an un-coerced act of free-will not an abridgment... ‘bad manners’ do not negate your rights either.
>You have no right to carry near the president.
Says whom? The Declaration of Independence? The ‘Supreme Law of the Land,’ the Constitution?
I thought they said that rights are “endowed by our Creator” and that I have the right to keep and bear arms (for the security of a free state)... am I wrong?
Go read this: http://docs.google.com/View?id=dv698tm_25c7b35cc9
>>I find it hard to believe that there is no federal statute that makes it illegal to carry a firearm within X distance of the POTUS. If there isn’t, there should be.
>
>X = 3000 miles.
Bingo. The entire Continental US would be about the ‘comfortable’ size for such a “buffer-zone”... the dangerous thing about such a ‘distance law’ is that it could start innocuously at, say, 30 feet... and then be increased to 50 yards... then half a mile... then a mile... then five... then ten... and at this point they could start enforcing it; busting in people’s heads and taking their arms.
Now that is scary..they’re already prone to violence.
The guns were NOT at the Town Hall or near the President. Even if some NUT wanted to do harm to the fake POTUS, there was no way he would get near him.
Besides, only Lefty types like to shoot at the President, not Conservatives. John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald come to mind.
Well, yes but then protesting outside a hospital full of wounded veterans is also inflammatory and burning the American flag is (literally)inflammatory.
All kinds of inflammatory things are done in the name of decent.
If they can have a million mom march, why can't we have an armed people's march on Washington?
You are not abridging your rights by deference. You are being ordered to do so by law and the USSS.
Us: guns that wouldn't measure up to the DEA
Luke 22:47-54a
[47] While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, [48] but Jesus asked him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”
[49] When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” [50] And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
[51] But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
[52] Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? [53] Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour — when darkness reigns.”
Jesus was protected by God the Father until it was His time to Pay for our sins...His disciples were armed and protective of their Lord, Jesus was not a pacifist...in the Garden, Jesus, healed the innocent slaves’ ear, it was Jesus who knew his fate, and wished only avoid more blood shed that day...Jesus is love and as we know from above willing to fight if necessary to defend the truth, and freedom
>You are being ordered to do so by law and the USSS.
This would be the same law that prohibits the abridgment of rights, or the conspiracy thereof, by/under the color of law/office? [USC TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241 & § 242]
Or perhaps the one making extortion illegal, like the alleged threats against people in the auto industry (GM, Chrysler) would certainly have been if it indeed happened?
Or perhaps it’s also like the laws against voter registration fraud? (Acorn) Voter fraud? (Several election counts) Voter intimidation? (Black Panther incident, dropped by the DOJ)
What about the laws against assault, or defacing property? Or are those null and void if they’re directed against some religious organization such as the Mormons for their political involvement in Prop 8?
There’s something like 10,000 federal laws... and these themselves can and do reference other, non-legislated documents/procedures/regulations. I think Rand had it right when she observed that Government does not want a free people, but a people it can control because EVERYTHING is in some way illegal. (or was that Heinlein?)
So, you say I’m being ordered to do so by the USSS and by law? So, I reply, since when do either of those trump the Constitution? Or is that a living, breathing document whose words change on a party’s whim? (IE the USSC ruled that Immanent Domain was allowable for the case to seize private property for imagined benefit [higher tax revenue] to be turned over to another private entity... this, done by any other organization, would be grand-theft/larceny and probably extortion. Is that right?)
What of the old axiom that those of greater power have greater responsibility [and therefore accountability]?
Or do you think it is fine that Rangle & Geitner can get a free pass on non-payment of taxes where you or I would be put in jail? Do you think it good and just that our leaders can accuse/condemn our warriors [acting in a war-zone] of war-crimes [w/o even investigation] and validate the claims of the enemy against our forces, (Even when investigation shows they acted IOW their ROE?) and later be excused from even a civil suit of slander? [John Murtha]
I tell you that I am tired of having “special rules” applied to “special people”... if you cannot accept the creed that all men were created equal (and therefore justice should be applied evenly) then why are you living in America, which was founded on such an idea? (Declaration of Independence)
I am NOT a subject to be ruled over; I am a FREE MAN! Only to my God will I kneel.
Aren’t you the guy who runs red lights?
Wingnuts proclaim right to carry near president!
So you're saying that we need to appease those who don't understand that it's legal and constitutionally acceptable to bear arms? Or are you saying that we need to appease those who think that law abiding citizens are a threat?
That is true.
But I am somewhat tired of people taking “turn the other cheek” to mean “take it in the ass.”
Where in the bible does it say that you should surrender your rights? (The only place I see is in 1 Jn, with the observation that “Greater love hath no man than that he should lay down his life for his friends” but there it is not an admonition to do so, but an observation.) Further, Esau is condemned for selling his [birth-]right. In Esther the Hebrews didn’t lay down and wait to be killed by their enemies because “it’s legal!” There’s also Is 58, where the people are told that God wants to see the oppressed freed, and injustice destroyed at the hands of His people (as an acceptable day-of-fasting).
>Aren’t you the guy who runs red lights?
Twice.
Are you the guy who sided with the FBI in the Ruby Ridge incident? Or Janet Reno in the Waco massacre? Do you ascribe to the Socrates philosophy that “Law is the correct judgement of the state”?
I’m the guy who believes that nuts like you shouldn’t be allowed within 5 miles of a president.
>I’m the guy who believes that nuts like you shouldn’t be allowed within 5 miles of a president.
Funny you should say that; I’ve seen Presidents Clinton and Bush (twice).
Now, what makes you think I’m a ‘nut’?
I’ve posited sources for my opinions, and I also own up to them being MY opinions.
Yet you refuse to back up your statements, or to even explain yourself... and attack my character instead.
Who the f—ck are you? What have you done for this country?
I’ve served 9 years in the Army, defending your rights and THIS is what you have to say? It is people with that attitude that make me wonder, sometimes, if the general person even WANTS me to defend their rights. (Fortionately, there are more who say ‘thank you.’)
Who the f-— are you, besides some nut that thinks people can carry around the president. Is that what you’re doing for this country?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.