Originally posted by: 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?
I'm no fan of PoW 9 times out of 10, but if he comes back to this thread you're about to be pwned big time :laugh:Originally posted by: marincounty
Your concern over the second ammendment is touching, but where were you the last few years when the first amendment was being torched?
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: 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?
No, I was saying that anybody that would be alarmed has a problem with the 1st and 2nd.
You're right though, aclu would only come to the defense if charges were brought and it had nothing to do with 2nd amendment. They have certain rights they defend, but not the 2nd.
Originally posted by: 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.
Originally posted by: SecPro
Well, you're a known fuckin retard, liar and a court certified loon so what you say or think doesn't amount to shit. This is just another topic where you come off looking like the stupid asshole that you are.
Hayabusa - the guy was allowed to stay because the SS decided it was OK. No other reason. If they had decided he was really a threat they would've acted differently. they are concious of their image, they are sensitive about being heavy handed and they are very good at sorting out the real threats from the bluster but at the end of the day if they feel there is a threat they will neutralize it. Period. The guys on these protection details are not typical law enforcement where they are concerned about making sure they do everything right so the case sticks in court. They are concerned about threats to the protectee and that is all.
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I have to wonder what would have happened had he had a legally concealed weapon and that sign?
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I have to wonder what would have happened had he had a legally concealed weapon and that sign?
Nobody would have known he had a weapon...
Originally posted by: RedChief
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Video of broadcast
I wouldn't mind so much, but I just know this is going to spread and I'm gonna have to listen to endless hours of commentary by people with IQs roughly equivalent to a kumquat. I've met Senators, Congressmen, and even a Vice President with my weapon on me. Never an issue before. Granted, never a President, as the two rallies I attended were on school property.
Perhaps its another argument for concealed carry...at least then we wouldn't have to listen to it like it was news worthy.
My IQ is around 160.
But lets see:
1. The POTUS has received a lot of death threats.
2. There is a man with a gun standing along the route the POTUS is going to be driven on.
You guys do not have any issues with this situation?
Lets see.
#1, true. But when W was presidnet, it seemed many deranged folks on the left had much more vivid fantasies in print and on film abut killing W.
#2. Well, how far in advance should the route be cleared of all possible Safety issues? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? 1 hour? 4 hours? 24 hours? Also remember that the presidentsa limo is one of the most heavily armored vehicles in the world.
Oh, and having a high intelligence doesn't automatically mean you have any common sense.
Originally posted by: piasabird
Look at the president. He is getting better and better at angering people everywhere. What we need is some bumper stickers "Angry Mob on Board". I saw a bumber sticker 2 days ago that said something like "I will keep my money and you keep the Change".
Originally posted by: piasabird
Look at the president. He is getting better and better at angering people everywhere. What we need is some bumper stickers "Angry Mob on Board". I saw a bumber sticker 2 days ago that said something like "I will keep my money and you keep the Change".
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: piasabird
Look at the president. He is getting better and better at angering people everywhere. What we need is some bumper stickers "Angry Mob on Board". I saw a bumber sticker 2 days ago that said something like "I will keep my money and you keep the Change".
Why, did Obama raise your taxes? Let's get all pissed off over things that didn't even happen. Have they come for your guns yet?
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The man had every right to carry a handgun at that location.
That said, if they so choose, the SS also has the right to remove him from that location if they deem him a threat to the President.
Still, he committed no crime.
God Bless the 2nd Amendment.
The sign called for water, not blood.Originally posted by: UberNeuman
A gun and a sign for a call to spill blood - what's the problem?
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: piasabird
Look at the president. He is getting better and better at angering people everywhere. What we need is some bumper stickers "Angry Mob on Board". I saw a bumber sticker 2 days ago that said something like "I will keep my money and you keep the Change".
Why, did Obama raise your taxes? Let's get all pissed off over things that didn't even happen. Have they come for your guns yet?
No but for obama we cannot afford ammo anymore. We have to resort to learning how to pistol whip again.
Dems in General are pissing people off though demonizing anyone who disagrees with them on healthcare is a losing strategy. I'm certain some of those old ladies are not in Tim McVieghs club or where white sheets. But they imply that they all do and that astroturf as they call it is just a bunch of wackos. I feel that is a mistake to miscatagorize and Demonize people that disagree with them.
Originally posted by: joshsquall
I love how people freak out when they see someone open carrying. If you're open carrying, you more than likely aren't trying to do something illegal.
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I have to wonder what would have happened had he had a legally concealed weapon and that sign?
Nobody would have known he had a weapon...
and the sign wouldn't have drawn the attention of the SS?
Originally posted by: joshsquall
I love how people freak out when they see someone open carrying. If you're open carrying, you more than likely aren't trying to do something illegal.
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?
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I have to wonder what would have happened had he had a legally concealed weapon and that sign?
Nobody would have known he had a weapon...
and the sign wouldn't have drawn the attention of the SS?