Reading what's out there today about this I've drawn my conclusions. Andrew and Reaver stated it best in their posts. This guy isn't right or wrong, as much as he's just a guy.

As for the carry community, carrying out in the open and proudly at a presidential event, while acting responsibly is a not only acceptable but a good idea.

Making our complaints heard about bad policy counts as acting responsibly.
I know what some would say, and I understand where you're coming from. But concealed doesn't mean concealed. Really, it doesn't. Not in New Hampshire, and not here if opportunity ever arises.

It seems to me that in all his arrogance and cockiness, obammy needs to be reminded that there is still a contingent that he's accountable to, a contingent with teeth.

Granted, the message might not have been the best idea...

I know I may get ripped for this, but I believe we protect our President way too much. Should our president pass on, we have a constitutionally approved chain of succession. That is one of the great things about our country. I am not saying they should have no protection, but I believe we go over and above to protect one man. We have had our leader assassinated before and the country did not implode. Why would that be different now? I am not advocating that, but really, should the need arise; we would just have an election. This is just me and YMMV.

for most of us on this board who carry everywhere that's legal, why wouldn't we carry when we are standing on a street somewhere, just because we are at a rally where the president is going to be, does not mean some lunatic isn't going to do something where you would need to defend yourself.

I'm sure he was using this as a statement more then a tool for the defence of his life at that point.

I don't know, just throwing it out there.

(let the ripping begin...)


You don't think it would be so bad?
Think man.........


chain of succession















And, just in case you thought there were a lot of strange deaths during the 90's...


















.

I'm old enough to remember when you couldn't post that kind of porn online....

I remember when AOL came on floppies. And CDs were for games with audio tracks, that you could play right off the CD. (I still listen to most of that music, and occasionally fire up the games they came from)

Hmmm. Diablo.

Mmmmm...Descent, and Descent II...*goes to fire up the rockin music*

That ain't 'porn'! It's more like the leading roles in a freakin' Horror Movie, where we're the victims!

Amen brother! :lol

That game consumed many an hour that should have been spent sleeping.

Ronald Regan signed California's gun control laws out of fear of the Black Panthers, who were parading with weapons at the state capitol. When informed this activity was legal, the California legislature responded in kind.

I'm all for gun rights, but I'm also opposed to peeing on the electric fence.

related article from cnn this morning

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/ ... index.html

Yep, here's the article from FoxNews.com

And a quote from the Brady bunch:



How? I would say it's quite the opposite. If it was a suspicious individual who was trying to conceal a weapon and get near the pres, then that's a different story and a valid concern, to me. But someone peacefully demonstrating, nowhere near the pres, openly carrying....that's perfectly legal and possibly one of the safest places to be.

The Brady bunch doesn't seem to care that the president is surrounded by people with guns.