TexasCHLforum.com

Ron Paul reacts to Kostric on some other MSNBC blowhard's show ...

http://www.rottingnation.com/2009/08/15 ... est-video/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

CBSNews slant on this story is to transition from Kostric right into more talk of the "rise of the militia movement" ... http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/12 ... ontentBody" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

amazing to me how when liberals control the White House, our executive branch is very concerned with "domestic terrorism" (basically Americans) whereas when conservatives are in control, "international terrorism" is the big threat.

So if you're a liberal, you fear your own people want to kill you
If you're a conservative, you fear outsiders want to kill you

I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions from the above observations.

dicion wrote:

AndyC wrote:It's the true lone wolves that security details worry about, concealed or not. Most organized assassination plots generate ripples somewhere that may be picked up beforehand - but a lone, previously unknown person with a grudge who doesn't care if he dies as long as he gets a crack at the target is really bad news.

And that goes right back to the fact that Laws don't deter crime, they punish it. The punishment is supposed to be the deterrent, however, when someone like that walks in someplace with the intention of killing themselves after the deed has been done.... well, it's fair to say that they aren't deterred by anything.

Well stated by both of you.

AndyC wrote:Personally, if I had been the agent-in-charge of the security-detail, I would not have removed his firearm.

I would, however, have bracketed him with a few agents - some overt, perhaps some less-so; a discreet word in the ear can work wonders, and that way both parties' needs are satisfied. The citizen can exercise his rights peacefully and any potential threat from that quarter towards the security of my principal can be taken care of if required - no mess, no fuss.

Smart way to handle it.

mikeintexas wrote:

Dave01 wrote:

austinrealtor wrote: MC "I was carrying a gun just last week standing right next to Rick Perry."
And you didn't cap him? what the heck???
Seriously, handguns in populated areas are for one thing only: killing people. If you think it's fine to "carry" a gun in that situation, then by extension you think it's fine to kill people. Not only is that against God's law and man's law, but for guys like PM and me, who are old enough to actually remember the Kennedy assassination(s), a guy casually bearing a gun within easy shooting range of a U.S. president of any stripe is an abomination.

This is the most depressing and outrageous viewpoint I have ever read. Seriously, it has ruined my day. Austinrealtor, I'm not sure how you managed to keep a clam and civil tongue responding to ignorance like this, but I applaud you for your effort. You might want to get your blood pressure checked though...I think it might have gone up a bit after this.

Dave

I agree with Dave. MC's comments were really out of left field and uncalled for.

Dave, Mike: Thank you both.

I do much better being calm and civil in a written debate. Had I been discussing this with the other three in person over beers after working the night shift (as we did with many subjects years ago), I likely would've been less civil

MC is an ol' friend/colleague/former co-worker of mine from way back in my early newspaper days (early 1990s). He had never expressed an anti-gun viewpoint to me before (in fact, I thought I had remembered him being pro-gun back in the day). But about a month ago he and I had a tit-for-tat debate over the grammatical construction of the 2nd Amendment and how it could change the meaning (an old debate, but interesting when debated by two copy editors). He took the anti-gun side on that debate. Now this little diatribe. Most (but not all) of my former newspaper colleagues are left of center politically, so some bit of anti-gun knee-jerk reaction makes sense from them. But most are more open to listening to a well-reasoned argument such as I presented. MC for some reason seemed intent on labeling all owners of handguns as murderers. Almost made me wonder if he was pulling my leg? Not sure, and not sure I want to ask him at this point.

Anyway, interesting to witness people's true deep-rooted biases expressed so openly.

Got into a discussion on Facebook last night after posting one of these videos. The opinions expressed by people who claim to be "pro-gun" (and those who are obviously anti-gun) are eye-opening. I always find it informative to discuss gun-related topics with the "general population" (friends, family, acquaintances who are not necessarily as pro-gun as I). I've purposely removed names to protect privacy of all involved. What follows is the word-for-word transcript of the debate (all three of the "others" work for major newspapers - as I once did) ...

CB C'mon. Legal or not, having a gun anywhere near the President is idiotic. I'm overall pro-gun rights, but there's just no need in that situation. It's almost like he was hoping to get in the news.

CB As a matter of fact, after watching the Matthews clip, I'm convinced that guy is a nut job. I might have shot him if I was Secret Service.

ME (AustinRealtor) It probably was a media "stunt". But why is it idiotic to carry a gun around an elected leader? I was carrying a gun just last week standing right next to Rick Perry. Nobody seemed bothered by that. And yes, I'm serious. And since when do you or anyone else get to determine another law-abiding citizen's "need" to carry a gun?

ME (AustinRealtor) If you had shot him - Secret Service or not - you'd rightfully be going to prison for murder.

PM Yeah, I would to side with CB on this one. It's like texting and driving or coming home with a blonde ... some things should just be common sense not to do.

ME (AustinRealtor) Look, the only reason this is even a story is because he was "open carrying" which is LEGAL in New Hampshire, where "concealed carry" is illegal. Flip this scenario and put the President in Texas and I guarantee you there are people legally "concealed carrying" near politicians all the time. But it's "concealed" so the tepid amongst us don't get their panties in a twist at the sight of - oh my gosh - a person who is not a police officer possessing a gun.

ME (AustinRealtor) Folks in New Hampshire don't have the option to "concealed carry" so - if they choose to defend themselves by legally carrying a firearm - their only option is to do so "openly". Should this guy give up his God-given right to self-defense because a politician is in town?

CB I'd rank "carrying a gun in the vicinity of a President" probably No. 1 on the list of most idiotic things you could do. It would be close between that and having unprotected sex in Haiti.

CB that guy even picks up a scratch on his leg or cocks his knee up and he's dead when the motorcade comes by. guarantee there were sights on him.

ME (AustinRealtor) If you're carrying said gun legally, and following all relevant laws at all times, there is nothing "idiotic" about it. Now, if the Secret Service had asked the guy to leave or to relinquish his firearm while the President was there, then he should do so (whether or not the SS has the legal right to even make such request/demand). It's important not to let a righteous stance turn into you getting the **** kicked out of you by men with guns AND badges.

PM Dude.... "legal" doesn't always mean "right"

ME (AustinRealtor) PM, explain that one to me. I didn't say this guy was "right" (nor did I say he was "wrong"). I'm not even saying I would do the same thing in his shoes. But that's the whole point. We're not in his shoes. We don't know why he did what he did. And frankly, it doesn't matter ... and here is where the "legal" part comes .... BECAUSE it is legal, it doesn't matter whether we would do it or whether we think it was a "good idea" or not. As you said, some may think taking home a blonde from a bar is not a good idea ... but it's legal, so live and let live.

ME (AustinRealtor) But I do draw the line at calling it "idiotic"; carrying a gun in and of itself is not "idiotic" regardless of what dignitary may be nearby ..... now, if he had made a motion toward the gun while the Prez was in vicinity, then yeah that would be "idiotic" and he would deserve two .357 Sig HPs right in the chest from every SS agent within 25 yards.

MC "I was carrying a gun just last week standing right next to Rick Perry."
And you didn't cap him? what the heck???
Seriously, handguns in populated areas are for one thing only: killing people. If you think it's fine to "carry" a gun in that situation, then by extension you think it's fine to kill people. Not only is that against God's law and man's law, but for guys like PM and me, who are old enough to actually remember the Kennedy assassination(s), a guy casually bearing a gun within easy shooting range of a U.S. president of any stripe is an abomination.

PM I simply mean that it may be legal to drive 65 on U.S. 290, but in the midst of a driving rainstorm it may not be advisable. Sometimes you have to take the situation into consideration.

ME (AustinRealtor) MC, that is a HUGE leap in logic to suggest that simply by carrying a gun in a populated area the ONLY possible motivation is "killing people" .... how about "saving people"??? Police carry guns - are they all just murderers waiting to happen? Or do they carry a gun in case they may need it to save their life or the lives of others by stopping a violent criminal who is unlawfully using force (or deadly force) against innocent people .... the fastest way to stop an aggressive attack by a living/breathing attacker is to shoot that attacker with a gun (and even this won't immediately stop the attack like you see in the movies) ... this goes for wild animals and violent, criminal people

ME (AustinRealtor) Again, I'm not necessarily saying I would have done what this guy did. But I won't label him idiotic for doing so. There are legitimate reasons he may have done so.

MC Name one. And no, it's no leap in logic at all. If you want to save people, be a lifeguard. Feed 'em salads and tofu. Cure cancer. How many murders are committed with handguns, vs. how many are prevented by killers being shot with handguns every year? The ratio is something like 500 to 1. Pretending you're going to be Captain America and shoot someone before they shoot you or someone else is born of watching too many Westerns and cop shows. Handguns are made for shooting people, pure and simple.

CB lol ... name a single legitimate reason.

ME (AustinRealtor) The legitimate reason he may have been carrying a handgun is obviously for self-defense. As for your reasoning NOT to carry a gun for self-defense, you make valid points and if you choose not to carry a gun because of those reasons, then I have no qualms with your decision. But some people feel the need or the responsibility to do all they can to protect themselves and their family from crime. The whole "Captain America" and "too many Westerns" comments are simplistic cop-out. Again, if it was not possible to shoot a bad guy before he shoots you, then why do LEOs carry guns? With proper training, a handgun can be an incredibly powerful self-defense tool that often does not even need to be fired to fend off a potential threat. But there's not enough space in a FB post to continue to explain why a handgun is a perfectly legitimate means of self-defense ....

ME (AustinRealtor) Oh and there are many handguns that are specifically made for shooting pieces of paper. I own a few handguns and none of them has ever shot a person (or another living thing for that matter), but I've shot many many pieces of paper.

CB I'll just end it on this. Carrying a gun within the vicinity of the President is "100% Idiotic," and you defending that action is pretty lame and shocking given your inspiring reaction to 9-11. I'll support having the gun to protect the family or keeping it in your car, but lines must be drawn.

ME (AustinRealtor) CB, do you even know for sure the guy had the gun anywhere near the President? I don't. He had it while carrying a sign near where the President "would be speaking in two hours" ... if the Secret Service asked him to leave or turn over his gun temporarily and he did so, is he still an idiot? Frankly, if this is NOT what happened, then it is the SS and the President's planners who are idiots for not holding this town hall meeting in a "secure" venue. I don't know NH law, but in Texas all that is required is for the owner of the property to say "no guns allowed" and/or post the proper sign banning guns on the private property and then no civilian can legally carry a gun there (the penalty for violating this is criminal trespassing).

CB the level of media attention it received leads me to believe that it was a legitimate security risk. definitely fault of the SS and planners to let it happen. 100% media stunt.

ME (AustinRealtor) just because some talking heads on MSNBC got frazzled does not make this a "legitimate security risk"

ME (AustinRealtor) a different interview with the guy who was carrying the gun by some sort of YouTube wanna-be reporter does shed some light on a few of the questions. He WAS asked to leave, and was in process of leaving, when a preacher at a church offered to let him stand on the church's private property. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Tas00WZ0Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm truly flabbergasted by MSNBC's coverage of this. I mean, I understand that not everyone fully understands the intracies of gun laws in each state, but the chief of police SAID IT'S OK!!!!

This is the scary part of how many in our society view guns ... always bad, unless carried by a LEO or military (and even then, merely a necessary evil). I thank God every day that our Founding Fathers had to foresight to ratify the Second Amendment. Otherwise, we would have lost any right to possess any gun for any purpose (kinda like England).

By the way, does anyone know for sure if this guy was anywhere near Obama?