guns have been around a long time. is there really anything that needs to be proven about them?
everyone claims they own guns for their protection. what was dude afraid of?
"The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation,"
- Thread starter fdd2blk
- Start date
everyone claims they own guns for their protection. what was dude afraid of?
medicineman
New Member
Probably those invisible commie lefties comming to get his guns, you know, the "pry from my cold dead hands". I own a few guns and I'd no more take them to a political rally than crap on the white house lawn. I just like having them around, locked in my expansive gun safe, just in case, in case of what? I'll know it when I see it.
CrackerJax
New Member
Only to the govt., and that's why they showed up.
medicineman
New Member
Dude, get off the coke, eats your brain, ask me how I know.that makes sense.
i work more hours to buy more coke to work more hours.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's so much his fear of personal harm. I think he is demonstrating that he has the right to carry and nobody has a right to challenge him on that issue.i'm curious why he feels the need to protect himself at a public rally. scared much?
He doesn't need to satisfy anyone's curiousity as to why he's carrying, anymore than you or I have to detail why we excercise free speech.
He like many people probably believes if you don't assert certain rights, they will be lost. Witness the "uproar" from all the people wanting the cops to "do something". Many people would use force to prevent him from using a right. That seems contradictory and uninformed to me.
CrackerJax
New Member
It was legal and the secret service said it was no big deal....so....
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
CrackerJax
New Member
The President wasn't there to talk about guns...but everyone knows when the president shows up, so do the cameras. All sorts of agendas are brought forth, to gain traction...or action. That's all it was....traction accomplished.
Big P
Well-Known Member
if liberals in government would not constantly try to trample on the right to bare arms i dont think people would bring them out in public peacfully in protest
they bring the guns out not to antimidate them with the weapon itself but to kinda say, like hey screw u people who wanna take my rights. im exercising my rights and you can do nothing about it
we would do the same if weed was legal and people wanted to ban it. we would smoke it in the streets if it was legal and be like nanny nanny boo boo
if u are a criminal and want a gun you wouldnt get a legal one unless u wanted it to get traced back to you
so that by itself to me kills any argument that stopping legal gun owners would prevent crime
seems to me if i was a criminal doing armed robberies i would feel much safer doing it in a town that has banned guns
they bring the guns out not to antimidate them with the weapon itself but to kinda say, like hey screw u people who wanna take my rights. im exercising my rights and you can do nothing about it
we would do the same if weed was legal and people wanted to ban it. we would smoke it in the streets if it was legal and be like nanny nanny boo boo
if u are a criminal and want a gun you wouldnt get a legal one unless u wanted it to get traced back to you
so that by itself to me kills any argument that stopping legal gun owners would prevent crime
seems to me if i was a criminal doing armed robberies i would feel much safer doing it in a town that has banned guns
PVS
Active Member
a protester cannot murder a politician with words....annoy them yes, but their brains-however agitated-will remain in their skulls.
second amendment is about defending your person, your property, and even can be argued to protect militias. however bringing your weapon under the banner of aggression is just that: aggression.
free speech does not mean the right to endanger others by threatening violence via extremist-right armed boot rallies around the president, which this trend is starting to turn to.
CrackerJax
New Member
Like I said...the secret service had NO problem with it....
PVS
Active Member
yet
when you have a group of men armed with assault rifles within the perimeter of a politician, they can very well be an effective guerilla platoon and have the ability to execute an attack. this is what concerns me.
it is partly because of this that i believe politicians, particularly a president, also have a right to self defense. i don't care that its obama and i would still have been pissed if it was bush. it would be incredibly foolish of any administration and secret service to not take precautions if more of these people gather in one spot.
PVS
Active Member
...with a pen, really.
CrackerJax
New Member
yet...nothing. Everything was legal...the secret service gave the green light.... guns don't make ppl crazy. The crazy is there well ahead of the gun.