Fearmongering ignorant news broadcasters

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Seriously? Where is this guys common sense?

I think he must have been wanting some attention or a showdown with the SS so he could complain about a violation of his rights.

Pretty much my take on it.

He was calling attention to himself to promote his line of thinking. Attention is what he was after and Matthews certainly gave it to him. The SS would be leery, but they would have checked with local authorities on the legality of his carry, and any criminal background on this idiot. Yeah, he's an idiot, but that's not illegal. If it were, half the nation would be behind bars.

I agree with everything except bolded. The SS wouldn't give a shit about local authorities. They'd err on the side of POTUS safety every time. Sort out details later ...

Secret Service Authority

You got it. The SS could give two shits about state laws. The care about one thing. Protecting the person they've been assigned. The law I've linked to gives them broad authority to designate almost anything a restricted area in conjuction with a protectee. They have carte blanche when it comes to protecting the President.

(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

 

[dmcowen674]

Any follow up on what they did to the guy yet?

Has he turned up at Gitmo?

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
A gun and a sign for a call to spill blood - what's the problem?

Why would anyone be alarmed by that?

Second and First Amendment in use - what's the problem?

Free speech zones, what's the problem?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Seriously? Where is this guys common sense?

I think he must have been wanting some attention or a showdown with the SS so he could complain about a violation of his rights.

Pretty much my take on it.

He was calling attention to himself to promote his line of thinking. Attention is what he was after and Matthews certainly gave it to him. The SS would be leery, but they would have checked with local authorities on the legality of his carry, and any criminal background on this idiot. Yeah, he's an idiot, but that's not illegal. If it were, half the nation would be behind bars.

I agree with everything except bolded. The SS wouldn't give a shit about local authorities. They'd err on the side of POTUS safety every time. Sort out details later ...

Secret Service Authority

You got it. The SS could give two shits about state laws. The care about one thing. Protecting the person they've been assigned. The law I've linked to gives them broad authority to designate almost anything a restricted area in conjuction with a protectee. They have carte blanche when it comes to protecting the President.

(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

What it means is that there can be an area where people are not permitted to cross. That's done all the time to limit the distance that people can approach the President.

I'm not sure why people think the SS is made up of stupid people. The last thing a President wants is confrontation. If there is a threat the SS will act accordingly, otherwise they will be considerate.

If they didn't give "two shits", how is it that this guy wasn't removed? They aren't automatons.

 

[SecPro]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Seriously? Where is this guys common sense?

I think he must have been wanting some attention or a showdown with the SS so he could complain about a violation of his rights.

Pretty much my take on it.

He was calling attention to himself to promote his line of thinking. Attention is what he was after and Matthews certainly gave it to him. The SS would be leery, but they would have checked with local authorities on the legality of his carry, and any criminal background on this idiot. Yeah, he's an idiot, but that's not illegal. If it were, half the nation would be behind bars.

I agree with everything except bolded. The SS wouldn't give a shit about local authorities. They'd err on the side of POTUS safety every time. Sort out details later ...

Secret Service Authority

You got it. The SS could give two shits about state laws. The care about one thing. Protecting the person they've been assigned. The law I've linked to gives them broad authority to designate almost anything a restricted area in conjuction with a protectee. They have carte blanche when it comes to protecting the President.

(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

This law does not superscede state laws because they don't exist. No state has a law on the books that addresses the protection of the President or other SS protectees.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
A gun and a sign for a call to spill blood - what's the problem?

Why would anyone be alarmed by that?

Second and First Amendment in use - what's the problem?

Free speech zones, what's the problem?

yeah no doubt. when bush talks free speech zones are ok but when its obama people should be able to have guns dangling all over their bodies while they wait for him to show up.

 

[marincounty]

Whose rights are more important here, the right of 300 million Americans to have a president , or one gun rights advocate's right to show off and get on tv?

I would easily err on the side of the safety of the president and infringe this guy's rights-temporarily while the president is in town. Not a huge imposition on the guy to be moved away if he is armed.

OMG my rights! Do you make such a fuss when they don't let you take your gun on the plane with you?

The guy is a complete douchebag to bring a gun to where the president is speaking.
I assume there are plenty of law-enforcement types in attendance when the president is there, no need for your own weapon.

 

[SecPro]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Seriously? Where is this guys common sense?

I think he must have been wanting some attention or a showdown with the SS so he could complain about a violation of his rights.

Pretty much my take on it.

He was calling attention to himself to promote his line of thinking. Attention is what he was after and Matthews certainly gave it to him. The SS would be leery, but they would have checked with local authorities on the legality of his carry, and any criminal background on this idiot. Yeah, he's an idiot, but that's not illegal. If it were, half the nation would be behind bars.

I agree with everything except bolded. The SS wouldn't give a shit about local authorities. They'd err on the side of POTUS safety every time. Sort out details later ...

Secret Service Authority

You got it. The SS could give two shits about state laws. The care about one thing. Protecting the person they've been assigned. The law I've linked to gives them broad authority to designate almost anything a restricted area in conjuction with a protectee. They have carte blanche when it comes to protecting the President.

(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

What it means is that there can be an area where people are not permitted to cross. That's done all the time to limit the distance that people can approach the President.

I'm not sure why people think the SS is made up of stupid people. The last thing a President wants is confrontation. If there is a threat the SS will act accordingly, otherwise they will be considerate.

If they didn't give "two shits", how is it that this guy wasn't removed? They aren't automatons.

He was under constant surveilance and when it was even remotely possible he could've harmed the President there was law enforcement within arms reach of him.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Seriously? Where is this guys common sense?

I think he must have been wanting some attention or a showdown with the SS so he could complain about a violation of his rights.

Pretty much my take on it.

He was calling attention to himself to promote his line of thinking. Attention is what he was after and Matthews certainly gave it to him. The SS would be leery, but they would have checked with local authorities on the legality of his carry, and any criminal background on this idiot. Yeah, he's an idiot, but that's not illegal. If it were, half the nation would be behind bars.

I agree with everything except bolded. The SS wouldn't give a shit about local authorities. They'd err on the side of POTUS safety every time. Sort out details later ...

Secret Service Authority

You got it. The SS could give two shits about state laws. The care about one thing. Protecting the person they've been assigned. The law I've linked to gives them broad authority to designate almost anything a restricted area in conjuction with a protectee. They have carte blanche when it comes to protecting the President.

(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

This law does not superscede state laws because they don't exist. No state has a law on the books that addresses the protection of the President or other SS protectees.

There are laws that permit the idiot to carry the weapon on private property with the permission of the land owner.

Now if the SS doesn't assess the situation before acting, why was he permitted to stay?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Seriously? Where is this guys common sense?

I think he must have been wanting some attention or a showdown with the SS so he could complain about a violation of his rights.

Pretty much my take on it.

He was calling attention to himself to promote his line of thinking. Attention is what he was after and Matthews certainly gave it to him. The SS would be leery, but they would have checked with local authorities on the legality of his carry, and any criminal background on this idiot. Yeah, he's an idiot, but that's not illegal. If it were, half the nation would be behind bars.

I agree with everything except bolded. The SS wouldn't give a shit about local authorities. They'd err on the side of POTUS safety every time. Sort out details later ...

Secret Service Authority

You got it. The SS could give two shits about state laws. The care about one thing. Protecting the person they've been assigned. The law I've linked to gives them broad authority to designate almost anything a restricted area in conjuction with a protectee. They have carte blanche when it comes to protecting the President.

(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

This law does not superscede state laws because they don't exist. No state has a law on the books that addresses the protection of the President or other SS protectees.

Read it again. It doesn't say 'laws regarding this topic', nor 'laws relevant to this chapter'...it says 'None of the laws'. As far as I can see, that means if the SS use that law and violate a jaywalking ordinance in the process they could be liable. I daresay constitutional (state and federal) rights would be even more zealously guarded.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Whose rights are more important here, the right of 300 million Americans to have a president , or one gun rights advocate's right to show off and get on tv?

I would easily err on the side of the safety of the president and infringe this guy's rights-temporarily while the president is in town. Not a huge imposition on the guy to be moved away if he is armed.

OMG my rights! Do you make such a fuss when they don't let you take your gun on the plane with you?

The guy is a complete douchebag to bring a gun to where the president is speaking.
I assume there are plenty of law-enforcement types in attendance when the president is there, no need for your own weapon.

I agree the guy is a douchebag, but he was within his rights... And I never want any party to infringe on our rights...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Whose rights are more important here, the right of 300 million Americans to have a president , or one gun rights advocate's right to show off and get on tv?

I would easily err on the side of the safety of the president and infringe this guy's rights-temporarily while the president is in town. Not a huge imposition on the guy to be moved away if he is armed.

OMG my rights! Do you make such a fuss when they don't let you take your gun on the plane with you?

The guy is a complete douchebag to bring a gun to where the president is speaking.
I assume there are plenty of law-enforcement types in attendance when the president is there, no need for your own weapon.

The right of the individual citizen are the most important. As soon as any individual right is the least infringed, all rights (collective and individual) are permanently gone.

Yes, I make this fuss about carrying on the plane.

FUCK YOU and your fascist dicatorship. You want me moved you'd better be willing to personally try and move me, and accept the consequences of your actions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He was under constant surveilance and when it was even remotely possible he could've harmed the President there was law enforcement within arms reach of him.

That's what I've been saying

He was allowed to stay because it was legal in NH for him to be there. It was the responsibility of the SS to guard Obama, however SS people coordinate with local law enforcement. That's what they do because locals know the lay of the land better. What sense does it make to alienate your source of local intel? Would that serve the President better?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: marincounty
Whose rights are more important here, the right of 300 million Americans to have a president , or one gun rights advocate's right to show off and get on tv?

I would easily err on the side of the safety of the president and infringe this guy's rights-temporarily while the president is in town. Not a huge imposition on the guy to be moved away if he is armed.

OMG my rights! Do you make such a fuss when they don't let you take your gun on the plane with you?

The guy is a complete douchebag to bring a gun to where the president is speaking.
I assume there are plenty of law-enforcement types in attendance when the president is there, no need for your own weapon.

It isn't need, it's the law. There is a law severely limiting the carrying of firearms on aircraft. Now if this guy (who is an idiot as I say) has violated any law, then he should be prohibited from being there. Make a law.

In the meantime, he has the right. A right is something you need justify. That's how freedom works. Operate within the law and don't harm another.

If Congress wants to limit the distance anyone can be to a President who is carrying a weapon I won't complain. I think it's a good idea. Until then, we have laws and rights and no kings.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: marincounty
Whose rights are more important here, the right of 300 million Americans to have a president , or one gun rights advocate's right to show off and get on tv?

I would easily err on the side of the safety of the president and infringe this guy's rights-temporarily while the president is in town. Not a huge imposition on the guy to be moved away if he is armed.

OMG my rights! Do you make such a fuss when they don't let you take your gun on the plane with you?

The guy is a complete douchebag to bring a gun to where the president is speaking.
I assume there are plenty of law-enforcement types in attendance when the president is there, no need for your own weapon.

The right of the individual citizen are the most important. As soon as any individual right is the least infringed, all rights (collective and individual) are permanently gone.

Yes, I make this fuss about carrying on the plane.

FUCK YOU and your fascist dicatorship. You want me moved you'd better be willing to personally try and move me, and accept the consequences of your actions.

No, I believe the country's right to have a president be safe trumps your rights to carry your gun everywhere. Apparently that's why they have a Secret Service.
Now its a fascist dictatorship if you can't bring your weapon anywhere you want at any time. Get over yourself. You are not more important than the president, whether you agree with him or not.

If you are such an ass to bring your gun to an event with the president, I won't try and move you myself, because you are likely unstable. I would merely inform a law enforcement officer and let them deal with you. FUCK YOU and YOUR REACTIONARY ASS.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: marincounty
Whose rights are more important here, the right of 300 million Americans to have a president , or one gun rights advocate's right to show off and get on tv?

I would easily err on the side of the safety of the president and infringe this guy's rights-temporarily while the president is in town. Not a huge imposition on the guy to be moved away if he is armed.

OMG my rights! Do you make such a fuss when they don't let you take your gun on the plane with you?

The guy is a complete douchebag to bring a gun to where the president is speaking.
I assume there are plenty of law-enforcement types in attendance when the president is there, no need for your own weapon.

The right of the individual citizen are the most important. As soon as any individual right is the least infringed, all rights (collective and individual) are permanently gone.

Yes, I make this fuss about carrying on the plane.

FUCK YOU and your fascist dicatorship. You want me moved you'd better be willing to personally try and move me, and accept the consequences of your actions.

No, I believe the country's right to have a president be safe trumps your rights to carry your gun everywhere. Apparently that's why they have a Secret Service.
Now its a fascist dictatorship if you can't bring your weapon anywhere you want at any time. Get over yourself. You are not more important than the president, whether you agree with him or not.

If you are such an ass to bring your gun to an event with the president, I won't try and move you myself, because you are likely unstable. I would merely inform a law enforcement officer and let them deal with you. FUCK YOU and YOUR REACTIONARY ASS.

Go right the hell ahead, because law and right are on MY SIDE on this matter, not yours. You're an ignorant fuckwad who'd surrender the foundation of the country on basis of rhetoric and paranoia.

You do not add ANY safety to anything through weapon prohibition, while you hinder individual safety and foundational liberty as well. If you want my god damned gun come try to take it yourself; otherwise fuck the hell off.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, this isn't going well.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Well, this isn't going well.

No worries, I'm out for the evening to help family move. I'll check in later and see if I can't get myself another vacation.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
A gun and a sign for a call to spill blood - what's the problem?

Why would anyone be alarmed by that?

1st amendment
2nd amendment

Anybody that has a problem with those would be alarmed.

-edit-
Where is the ACLU on this? *crickets*

 

[ilkhan]

Originally posted by: marincounty
I assume there are plenty of law-enforcement types in attendance when the president is there, no need for your own weapon.

I can argue that there are plenty of law-enforcement types in attendance, which is all the reason one needs to carry. But I won't, yet.

Regardless of his reasons, he wasn't violent, he wasn't a raving lunatic, and he did have the right to bear arms. The media can (and will, OMG they will) rant and rave all they want. He wasn't doing anything illegal.

To add: there are people who's job it is to follow the President everywhere, with guns on their hips, more in the closet, and heavy weapons close by. You just object to the PUBLIC having the right to bear arms near the president. I see that as pretty sad. Something about innocent until proven guilty comes to mind as well.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: marincounty
Whose rights are more important here, the right of 300 million Americans to have a president , or one gun rights advocate's right to show off and get on tv?

I would easily err on the side of the safety of the president and infringe this guy's rights-temporarily while the president is in town. Not a huge imposition on the guy to be moved away if he is armed.

OMG my rights! Do you make such a fuss when they don't let you take your gun on the plane with you?

The guy is a complete douchebag to bring a gun to where the president is speaking.
I assume there are plenty of law-enforcement types in attendance when the president is there, no need for your own weapon.

The right of the individual citizen are the most important. As soon as any individual right is the least infringed, all rights (collective and individual) are permanently gone.

Yes, I make this fuss about carrying on the plane.

FUCK YOU and your fascist dicatorship. You want me moved you'd better be willing to personally try and move me, and accept the consequences of your actions.

No, I believe the country's right to have a president be safe trumps your rights to carry your gun everywhere. Apparently that's why they have a Secret Service.
Now its a fascist dictatorship if you can't bring your weapon anywhere you want at any time. Get over yourself. You are not more important than the president, whether you agree with him or not.

If you are such an ass to bring your gun to an event with the president, I won't try and move you myself, because you are likely unstable. I would merely inform a law enforcement officer and let them deal with you. FUCK YOU and YOUR REACTIONARY ASS.

Go right the hell ahead, because law and right are on MY SIDE on this matter, not yours. You're an ignorant fuckwad who'd surrender the foundation of the country on basis of rhetoric and paranoia.

You do not add ANY safety to anything through weapon prohibition, while you hinder individual safety and foundational liberty as well. If you want my god damned gun come try to take it yourself; otherwise fuck the hell off.

No, I don't intend to try and disarm an armed and obviously unstable person myself. That's why we have police. It definitely enhances the presidents safety to not have an armed audience where he is speaking. Do you remember Presidents Kennedy and Reagan? Or Senator Robert Kennedy? This is not ignorance and paranoia, this is real.

Your concern over the second ammendment is touching, but where were you the last few years when the first amendment was being torched?



<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL&type=printable">Text</a>
Quarantining dissent
How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech

When President Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up "free speech zones" or "protest zones," where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.

When Bush went to the Pittsburgh area on Labor Day 2002, 65-year-old retired steel worker Bill Neel was there to greet him with a sign proclaiming, "The Bush family must surely love the poor, they made so many of us."

The local police, at the Secret Service's behest, set up a "designated free-speech zone" on a baseball field surrounded by a chain-link fence a third of a mile from the location of Bush's speech.

The police cleared the path of the motorcade of all critical signs, but folks with pro-Bush signs were permitted to line the president's path. Neel refused to go to the designated area and was arrested for disorderly conduct; the police also confiscated his sign.

Neel later commented, "As far as I'm concerned, the whole country is a free-speech zone. If the Bush administration has its way, anyone who criticizes them will be out of sight and out of mind."

At Neel's trial, police Detective John Ianachione testified that the Secret Service told local police to confine "people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views" in a so-called free- speech area.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: spidey07

-edit-
Where is the ACLU on this? *crickets*

His wasn't arrested you dimwit. Why would the aclu show up?

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: marincounty
Whose rights are more important here, the right of 300 million Americans to have a president , or one gun rights advocate's right to show off and get on tv?

I would easily err on the side of the safety of the president and infringe this guy's rights-temporarily while the president is in town. Not a huge imposition on the guy to be moved away if he is armed.

OMG my rights! Do you make such a fuss when they don't let you take your gun on the plane with you?

The guy is a complete douchebag to bring a gun to where the president is speaking.
I assume there are plenty of law-enforcement types in attendance when the president is there, no need for your own weapon.

The right of the individual citizen are the most important. As soon as any individual right is the least infringed, all rights (collective and individual) are permanently gone.

Yes, I make this fuss about carrying on the plane.

FUCK YOU and your fascist dicatorship. You want me moved you'd better be willing to personally try and move me, and accept the consequences of your actions.

No, I believe the country's right to have a president be safe trumps your rights to carry your gun everywhere. Apparently that's why they have a Secret Service.
Now its a fascist dictatorship if you can't bring your weapon anywhere you want at any time. Get over yourself. You are not more important than the president, whether you agree with him or not.

If you are such an ass to bring your gun to an event with the president, I won't try and move you myself, because you are likely unstable. I would merely inform a law enforcement officer and let them deal with you. FUCK YOU and YOUR REACTIONARY ASS.

Reactionary? :laugh:

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: spidey07

-edit-
Where is the ACLU on this? *crickets*

His wasn't arrested you dimwit. Why would the aclu show up?

This.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: UberNeuman
A gun and a sign for a call to spill blood - what's the problem?

Why would anyone be alarmed by that?

1st amendment
2nd amendment

Anybody that has a problem with those would be alarmed.

-edit-
Where is the ACLU on this? *crickets*

Since this was a NEWS STORY and no charges were pressed I don't think you understand what the ACLU does.

What, do you want them to say that the NEWS even if it is being ridiculous can't do so?