A group of citizens protesting their right to bear arms outside of President Obama's rally, including one man openly caryring a legal assault weapon, made the front page of CNN this morning. Look at this headline:
Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal
Like it is some sort of unfortunate. surprise. God forbid that carrying a weapon that everyone can see, unloaded, isn't a crime. Additionally, the men were never within close proximity of the President.
In both instances, the men carrying weapons were outside the venues where Obama was speaking.
The Secret Service understood the unimportance of the incident:
Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."
It is unfortunate that, rather than punish the people who commit crimes with guns and keep them out of the hands of felons and mentally disabled, we freak out anytime we see a citizen legally carrying one. The best point is made by the man in question:
"I come from another state where 'open carry' is legal, but no one does it, so the police don't really know about it and they harass people, arrest people falsely," the man, who wasn't identified, said in an interview aired by CNN affiliate KNVX. "I think that people need to get out and do it more so that they get kind of conditioned to it."
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok, I think the issue is more about WHAT TYPE of gun, not that it WAS a gun? An assault rifle's sole purpose is to kill people as efficiently as possible -high fire rate, extremely accurate (unless an AK47), military grade- which is why people freak out. It is not something for self-defense (a handgun or shotgun) or hunting (shotgun, rifle). When people usually see them, they are in the hands of SWAT, Military, and Criminals/Enemy Combatants/Terrorists, not your Average Joe.
ReplyDeleteNow, am I for gun rights? Of course I am, but within reason. I understand Self-defense or the wish to hunt. But I will never understand why a man needs a 50 Caliber sniper rifle (a friend found one in Colarado for sale at only $2000) or an M16. These go, in my mind at least, far beyond just self defense. And that is what it seems to be at the heart of the post. Whether weapons designed solely for killing large number of people in a very efficient manner should be in the hands of the average citizen, especially when the President in the immediate vicinity. Now, I am not saying if you have a gun such as these you are planning something insidious....But what I do want to know is..WHY do you need one in the first place?
Is it your place to determine what someone needs or doesn't need, within his constitutional right to bear arms? Just saying...
ReplyDeleteSo, just because I have freedom of speech, should I shout fire in a crowded theater? Or burn Effigies of Public officials? Or that I should be able to slander anyone? Because technically, those are not in the constitution itself, but instead passed so as to protect the people from misuse of the rights granted in the constitution. Now, I feel that saying that the Second Amendment grants the individual the right to bear military hardware is pushing that and also endangers the safety of others. Just saying...
ReplyDelete