Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

[retro-man]

I'll give my own views on some of the last several posts:

Extreme4X4, The difference between guns and those other things: cars, knives, matches: is that guns are specifically killing appliances. They are not made for gutting or cutting or transporting or lighting (or "collecting" or "target shooting as a hobby"), they are made for killing. 99.9% of people could live just fine without them.* That is why they are so easy to vilify. I would think the difference there is pretty comprehensible.

MERCURXR4Ti, One of the family stories I grew up with is of a family friend who heard a noise in his house at night, grabbed his gun and got up to investigate. When he didn't return to bed for awhile, his wife got up to see what was going on. On his way back up the hall toward the bedroom he encountered her in the dark hallway, threw her up against the wall with the gun in her jaw, and was milliseconds away from pulling the trigger when she made a noise and he realized it was her. He got rid of his gun. Two of my own early experiences with guns were: 1.) Having a rifle pointed at my back by a girl I had just met - to make me play piano! No parents home. and 2.) The kid next door getting into his dad's rifle, holding it to his jaw on the back deck of their house, moving it away at the last moment, and it discharging into the air. No parents home. 3.) My father-in-law is missing an eye thanks to a childhood accident with his father's hunting rifle.

Trimdingman, The government has overstepped its mandate, and there's not a thing you can do about it - gun or no gun. Are you going to go out against the helicopters and the tanks and the night vision goggles? Good luck with that. I remember the news reports the last time Saddam won the Iraqi election (with a 100% mandate!). The Iraqi people ran out into the streets and fired their handguns into the air in celebration. They were allowed to have them. Ponder that for a minute.

 

*Extreme, unlike yourself, I have not worked in the firearms industry, and am not a lifelong NRA member (the same group that has reflexively opposed every last bit of gun legislation, including background checks, waiting periods, plastic guns, armor piercing bullets, the list goes on). My kids grew up in a house without a firearm in it. I grew up in a house without a firearm in it. My father grew up in a house without a firearm in it. And we all lived to tell about it. Presumably my great grandfather, a North Dakota farmer, had a rifle. I don't know - my grandfather never mentioned it. Gun owners - a few are friends of mine - almost always have this heroic vision of defending their homes against criminal invaders or a government run amok. I suggest that it is they who are living in a fantasy world - not those who think we would be better off without easy access to handguns and automatic weapons. 99.9% of the people, with the exception - full disclosure - of one stabbing victim (stabbed at close quarters by a friend during a drunken fight) and a kid in Junior High who blew himself up with a pipe bomb, 99.9% of the people who I have ever known pass from this world have died at home, or in a hospital from one of the three big killers: heart disease, stroke, and cancer - and a few other odd ones. You will not go out in a hail of gunfire. You will quietly expire your last breath with a few grieving loved ones around. The main defense for my family has always been the back door. Haven't had to use it yet, but I'm sure it works just fine.

 

Those are my views. I respect yours, and I'm not going to try to take your guns away.

Edited August 28, 2008 by retro-man

[mulewright]

A good friend of mine was on national news about 8 or 9 years back when he accidentally shot his younger brother while he was cleaning his hunting rifle.

My friend was carrying a legal gun and his father was in the room and so forth.

Accidents happen, they always will.

 

Firearms accidents are actually very rare although you wouldn't know that by listening to liberals. The numbers show that about 1 in 500,000 people will be killed in a gun accident. With almost 1/2 of all households and just under 1/3 of all adults in this country owning guns an accident is really a fairly rare event.

 

http://www.progressiveu.org/025114-the-tru...t-gun-accidents

 

If you really want to protect kids outlawing swimming pools would be much more effective.

[suv_guy_19]

Firearms accidents are actually very rare although you wouldn't know that by listening to liberals. The numbers show that about 1 in 500,000 people will be killed in a gun accident. With almost 1/2 of all households and just under 1/3 of all adults in this country owning guns an accident is really a fairly rare event.

 

http://www.progressiveu.org/025114-the-tru...t-gun-accidents

 

If you really want to protect kids outlawing swimming pools would be much more effective.

 

 

The numbers show that only 7 in 100000 people in your country will be murdered....and most of that will be gang violence. More than the accidental death rate of guns, but not much to worry about. There's no reason to be paranoid.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

 

I still don't think that people should have guns taken away, but they should be locked away somewhere safely. If you live in rural areas, you should maybe be able to keep one shotgun out with ammunition hidden so as to avoid accidents. The world (at least in NA) isn't nearly as scary as some would like to make it seem.

 

Oh, and the Liberal bashing from some on this site really gets tiring.

Edited August 28, 2008 by suv_guy_19

[mulewright]

The numbers show that only 7 in 100000 people in your country will be murdered....and most of that will be gang violence. More than the accidental death rate of guns, but not much to worry about. There's no reason to be paranoid.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence

 

I still don't think that people should have guns taken away, but they should be locked away somewhere safely. If you live in rural areas, you should maybe be able to keep one shotgun out with ammunition hidden so as to avoid accidents. The world (at least in NA) isn't nearly as scary as some would like to make it seem.

 

Oh, and the Liberal bashing from some on this site really gets tiring.

 

The data when compared to 1972 shows how effective the education of gun owners has been in this regard, we now have two and a half times as many guns and many more people, yet in 1972 there were more than three times as many gun accidents.

 

You're right regarding gang violence, when you hear the numbers the gun control advocates thow out there about the number of kids killed by guns each year, the way they come up with those numbers is to include "kids" up to the age of 24, suicides and justifiable shootings, including those by police. That way they can include all the gang bangers.

 

A good read on this subject is John Lotts "More Guns Less Crime"

[BlackHorse]

I'll give my own views on some of the last several posts:

Extreme4X4, The difference between guns and those other things: cars, knives, matches: is that guns are specifically killing appliances. They are not made for gutting or cutting or transporting or lighting (or "collecting" or "target shooting as a hobby"), they are made for killing. 99.9% of people could live just fine without them

 

I didn't bother to read past this point retro because anti-gun dribble nonsense is just that and it's not worth the time anyone will waste reading it. 99.9% of people could live just fine without auto insurance or home owners insurance, until you get in a car accident or your house burns.

 

Now, I'm a peaceful man. I'm a peacful man that knows a lot of other men who also own firearms to protect themselves and their families. They are peaceful men too. We are the kind of good law abiding citizens that governments claim they want us all to be. And so we are, tried and true, law abiding, but with the absolute knowledge that we have the right to defend ourselves, by leathel means if necessary, from thugs and governments alike. That means I have a right to a firearm and that choice of firearm(s) shall not be infringed. Not you nor SUV nor any communist socialist moronic dribble will ever change our minds and if by chance the government should someday decide they have the right to take away my rights and are just going to take away my firearms under the guise of "protecting" us; then we will not be good law abiding citizens anymore so help me God. That is what it comes down to, cut and dry, no bullshit.

[fmorriso]

QUOTE (igor @ Jun 26 2008, 10:46 AM) *

"you all" is that proper english for a dumbarse hillbillie?

y'all (singular) - refers to one person.

 

y'all (plural) - refers to a group of people.

 

all y'all - refers to everyone.

 

Don't ask me how to tell the difference between the first two when somebody is speaking. My entire experience of living among people who use such phrases on a regular basis consists of one Summer spent in "LA" (lower Alabama) when I was 12. Even though I was born in Arizona, everybody in the small town in Alabama where I stayed referred to me as "one of them Yankees". I don't think they were talking about a baseball team. Now if only I had realized what the girls were referring too when they kept saying "give me some sugar" .... oh well, that's a subject for another type of forum.

[mulewright]

I didn't bother to read past this point retro because anti-gun dribble nonsense is just that and it's not worth the time anyone will waste reading it. 99.9% of people could live just fine without auto insurance or home owners insurance, until you get in a car accident or your house burns.

 

Now, I'm a peaceful man. I'm a peacful man that knows a lot of other men who also own firearms to protect themselves and their families. They are peaceful men too. We are the kind of good law abiding citizens that governments claim they want us all to be. And so we are, tried and true, law abiding, but with the absolute knowledge that we have the right to defend ourselves, by leathel means if necessary, from thugs and governments alike. That means I have a right to a firearm and that choice of firearm(s) shall not be infringed. Not you nor SUV nor any communist socialist moronic dribble will ever change our minds and if by chance the government should someday decide they have the right to take away my rights and are just going to take away my firearms under the guise of "protecting" us; then we will not be good law abiding citizens anymore so help me God. That is what it comes down to, cut and dry, no bullshit.

One of the fundamental differences between this country and most others including the UK,Canada, Austrailia etc... is that you have a right to defend your self and your family. In the UK , if you injure the criminal while he's committing a crime against you ... you will be prosecuted. I don't think Canada has gone quite that far yet but I have seen in their import regulations for visitors that "You do not have a right to self defense in Canada".

[suv_guy_19]

One of the fundamental differences between this country and most others including the UK,Canada, Austrailia etc... is that you have a right to defend your self and your family. In the UK , if you injure the criminal while he's committing a crime against you ... you will be prosecuted. I don't think Canada has gone quite that far yet but I have seen in their import regulations for visitors that "You do not have a right to self defense in Canada".

 

 

In Canada you have the right to defend yourself with the same amount of force that has been used against you. If someone was trying to kill you and you kill them, it is very unlikely that you will get prosecuted (depending on the circumstance). You are also allowed to own firearms in Canada of basically every type. You do have to have special license types for some, but you can own almost anything you want, you just can't carry them. The guns are controlled through licensing and registration.

 

The registration has not worked as hoped by the government that implemented it, but the licensing is very important in the opinion of most (actually, so is the registry). The problems with the registry are its cost overruns and the lack of compliance. The current government has extended amnesty meaning it is not currently a crime to have an unregistered gun. If people were willing to comply and the system wasn't so far over budget, it ould have been an even more useful tool for solving crime.

 

This is not a dig at America in any way, I want to make that clear, but according to facts that I presented earlier, you are also much more likely to have to defend yourself in the US than in Canada or the majority of Europe. Guns aren't seen as a necessity or even a want by many in urban areas here. Rural areas are different.

Edited August 29, 2008 by suv_guy_19

[retro-man]

I didn't bother to read past this point retro because anti-gun dribble nonsense is just that and it's not worth the time anyone will waste reading it.

Fine. Don't read the whole post. Just read the last sentence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Horse's ass.

 

 

 

 

p.s. I think you meant "drivel", not "dribble". But "close enough" seems to be the guiding principal of your life.

[Extreme4x4]

Self defense in this country is all based on "the reasonable man." In other words, would a "reasonable man" fear for his/her life, or the life of others. If the answer is yes, then you are fine. One of the owners of the first gun club I worked at, was a top criminal lawyer in our state. He taught many classes for us.

 

Of course, this premise has been twisted and abused in many states and municipalities.

 

suv, your country has had much more restrictive gun controls, than the US, for a long time. Thus, it would be no surprise that few see the need. The culture of gun ownership is just very different.

 

I appreciate the fact that you do not feel the need to dictate to me what I wish to do, when it comes to gun ownership.

 

Retro, you make the same mistake that many anti-gun people make. You "assume" that those of us that would protect ourselves and our families, or who just enjoy shooting as a hobby (I do not hunt)................ are paranoid crazies. We must sit in the corner of the bedroom every night.............. gun in hand............... just waiting for some hapless SOB to break into our homes. We probably have "cop killer bullets" in the gun also.............. right??? After all, we think that everyone is after us, right???

 

We are your neighbor, and we are your friend. Our kids play with your kids. You certainly have much less to fear from us, than you do any criminal................ or even many of the other law abiding people out there. We will not try to shove our hobby down your throat, and chances are good, you don't even know we own a gun. See, we don't all walk around in camo. Some of us might even have our concealed carry piece on us................ and you would never know that either. We do not brag about it, we rarely talk about it, and the majority of us do not have NRA stickers on our vehicles, or our homes. We are members of the NRA, not because we are gun "nuts," but because we believe in our rights. We do think about our safety a little more than you do, but it does not take up much of our thoughts either. Most of us do not have visions of going out in a blaze of glory, as we do not glorify gun ownership. It is a choice we make. Chances are, many of your other friends also have firearms, you just don't know about it.

 

True story for you. When I worked at a local gun club/shooting range/store, a lady came into the store (this is a very upscale store). She came to me, because I was the only female salesperson on the floor at the time. She told me "I am anti-gun, but this SOB broke into my house last night, and I want to buy the biggest gun to blow that __________ away the next time !!!!!!" I told her "woah nellie............ you need to take some classes first, and then we will find out what kind of gun you would like (having a gun you do not enjoy shooting, for defense, is stupid. You need to practice, or it will do you no good). She took a months worth of classes............... and came back to me. Now she said "I have changed my mind!!!!! Shooting is fun !!!! What a great stress reliever........... which one do I want???"

 

BTW, I am very pleased that you also do not wish to infringe upon my rights. I was not raised around guns, nor did any of my relatives ever talk about guns either. This was a choice I made on my own.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Extreme4x4

[RaZor]

I really do not want to get involved in this discussion to any length, however, I feel compelled to point out that if personal protection is really the reason that people feel compelled to carry a weapon, or to have one really handy (under the pillow/in the night stand), then I would highly recommend considering getting one of THESE.

 

Yes, I own guns (a 12 gauge, a carbine rifle, and a M1911), however, I think that I will get one of those tasers as they are not fatal and would serve the purpose.

 

One thing that I have found with avid gun owners/shooters/hunters is that even with all the training, knowledge, and practice/expertise very few have really come to grips with the decision process that one must go through when you have a human being in your sights - and pulling the trigger. Even in a self-protection/defense situation -- I have found that most people have a very difficult time dealing with it after - if they actually do take a life. Now I realize (and have witnessed) the usual macho mentality and the ability of the human to rationalize - but have also witnessed the most macho-gun-expert have serious problems dealing with the aftermath. It will be definitely be a life-changing event.

 

So why not remove the "fatal" aspect of protection? The taser will definitely stop an assailant/intruder - and offers something that a gun doesn't - the ability to "pull-the-trigger" a few extra times - you know, to punish the assailant with a few extra blasts of "juice" - for scaring the hell out of you/endangering you in the first place?

 

I will add one little story that happened to one guy that bought one of these (I wouldn't recommend following in his footsteps tho')

Last weekend I saw something at Larry's Pistol & Pawn Shop that sparked my interest. The occasion was our 15th anniversary and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Julie. What I came across was a 100,000-volt, pocket/purse-sized taser. The effects of the taser were supposed to be short lived, with no long-term adverse affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety. WAY TOO COOL!

 

Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home. I loaded two triple-a batteries in the darn thing and pushed the button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however, that if I pushed the button AND pressed it against a metal surface at the same time; I'd get the blue arch of electricity darting back and forth between the prongs??

 

AWESOME!!!?

 

Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Julie what that burn spot is on the face of her microwave! Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it couldn't be all that bad with only two triple-A batteries, right?! !??

 

There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently (trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving target. I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of a second) and thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat. But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised. Am I wrong???

 

So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose, directions in one hand, and taser in another. The directions said that a one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant; a two-second burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; a three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop on the ground like a fish out of water. Any burst longer than three seconds would be wasting the batteries??

 

All the while I'm looking at this little device measuring about 5" long, less than 3/4 inch in circumference; pretty cute really and (loaded with two itsy, bitsy triple-A batteries) thinking to myself, "no possible way!"??

 

What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do my best... I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with her head cocked to one side as to say, "don't do it dumb ass," reasoning that a one- second burst from such a tiny little ole thing couldn't hurt all that bad. I decided to give myself a one-second burst just for heck of it. I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button and...

 

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!!!

 

I'm pretty sure Hulk Hogan ran in through the side door, picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs!

 

The cat was standing over me making meowing sounds I had never heard before, licking my face, undoubtedly thinking to herself, "Do it again, stupid, do it again!"

 

Note: If you ever feel compelled to "mug" yourself with a taser, one note of caution: there is no such thing as a one-second burst when you zap yourself! You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor. A three-second burst would be considered conservative.

 

SON-OF-A-*%#... That hurt like **% !!!

 

A minute or so later (I can't be sure, as time was a relative thing at that point), I collected my wits (what little I had left), sat up and surveyed the landscape. My bent reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace. How did they get up there??? My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs.

 

I'm still looking for my testicles! I'm offering a significant reward for their safe return!!

 

So, just think about that ability to "punish" that assailant -- and of course there are versions that allow "shooting" of the projectile and still be able to punish the assailant - so that he will end up wondering what happened to his . . .

[Trimdingman]

Trimdingman, The government has overstepped its mandate, and there's not a thing you can do about it - gun or no gun. Are you going to go out against the helicopters and the tanks and the night vision goggles? Good luck with that. I remember the news reports the last time Saddam won the Iraqi election (with a 100% mandate!). The Iraqi people ran out into the streets and fired their handguns into the air in celebration. They were allowed to have them. Ponder that for a minute.

 

 

Where is Saddam now? The people had the guts to help the Allies take him out. If Hitler had not disarmed the German citizens, how far would he have gotten?

If every household is armed and ready, it would be a formidable force.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Trimdingman

[sprinter]

Blackwater needs some gun grabbers to work Hurricane Gustav. Get ready for round 2 in New Orleans

[mulewright]

This is not a dig at America in any way, I want to make that clear, but according to facts that I presented earlier, you are also much more likely to have to defend yourself in the US than in Canada or the majority of Europe. Guns aren't seen as a necessity or even a want by many in urban areas here. Rural areas are different.

 

You must be excluding the UK from your conclusion...

 

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime...rime-in-us.html

Edited August 30, 2008 by mulewright

[suv_guy_19]

You must be excluding the UK from your conclusion...

 

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime...rime-in-us.html

 

Thats not what the homicide numbers that I presented show, but who knows, either one could be right I suppose.

 

My numbers are a bit dated though.

Edited August 30, 2008 by suv_guy_19

[Trimdingman]

Why do you believe it is that the left is so hot to ban firearms? It is really not an important issue. Put into perspective firearm deaths by non-criminal causes are minimal. Individual freedom goes against the grain of liberals. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that one day they will push an armed public too far?

[mulewright]

Why do you believe it is that the left is so hot to ban firearms? It is really not an important issue. Put into perspective firearm deaths by non-criminal causes are minimal. Individual freedom goes against the grain of liberals. What are they afraid of? Are they afraid that one day they will push an armed public too far?

 

You've got it! gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

[sprinter]

You've got it! gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.

 

 

 

And here are your paid mercenaries to take control. Still looking for thugs.

 

http://www.blackwaterusa.com/jobs/default_contract.asp

 

How many out there even has a clue that our president has legally obtained the same power Hitler had and is hiring more 'brown shirts'

 

 

What is going on right now does not bode very well for America at all. What would you do if I told you that there is a plan in action right now to strip you of your freedoms, inter you in a detention camp indefinitely, and take control of every aspect of our country?

This plan goes back decades, but I would like to keep it recent. We’ll say, the past 2 years. It all starts with H.R. 5122 (John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007)[text of bill] which was passed in congress on September 30, 2006 and signed by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006. This bill effectively (and officially) paved the way for the complete control of our country by one man - The President himself.

The bill revises the Insurrection Act of 1807, an act allowing the president to personally use military force to quell rebellion, lawlessness, and subversion. The new revisions expand those abilities to allow Bush to “…employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to…restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster (emphasis added), epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States…, where the President determines that,…domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy…”. The Insurrection Act of 1807 was repealed in 1878 with the passing of the Posse Comitatus Act which reinforced the idea that the military was meant to govern our borders rather than police our streets.

 

Remember the National Guard was taking guns from the residents of New Orleans? Is that not a violation of section 332 2 A?

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5122

 

SEC. 1076. USE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN MAJOR PUBLIC EMERGENCIES.

(a) Use of the Armed Forces Authorized-

 

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 333 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authoritiesof the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

 

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

 

`( suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

 

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, andof the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authoritiesof that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`( opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

 

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(, the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`( Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.

(2) PROCLAMATION TO DISPERSE- Section 334 of such title is amended by inserting `or those obstructing the enforcement of the laws' after `insurgents'.

(3) HEADING AMENDMENT- The heading of chapter 15 of such title is amended to read as follows:

 

`CHAPTER 15--ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAWS TO RESTORE PUBLIC ORDER'.

(4) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- (A) The tables of chapters at the beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the following new item:

 

331'.

( The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to sections 333 and inserting the following new item:

 

`333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law.'.

Edited September 1, 2008 by sprinter

[fmccap]

Arrest near Obama event sparks protest

Members of OpenCarry.org contend the arrest of John Noble, 50, of Industry was uncalled for, alleging state police suspended a state law allowing the right to bear arms ahead of the scheduled presence of the Illinois senator at a nearby site, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported Monday.

 

"I am a threat to no one," the 6-foot-3, 280-pound gun owner told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "Mr. Obama doesn't trump my constitutional rights. The president of the United States doesn't trump my constitutional rights."

[suv_guy_19]

Arrest near Obama event sparks protest

 

So what do you think they should have done?

[fmccap]

So what do you think they should have done?

Nothing. Did they ever state once that he posed a threat or acted like he did? Not everyone is a criminal.

[suv_guy_19]

Nothing. Did they ever state once that he posed a threat or acted like he did? Not everyone is a criminal.

 

No, not everyone is a criminal, but you really can't be too careful. Also, police don't usually state all of the details, something that doesn't work in their favour as people start to second guess them.

[fmccap]

No, not everyone is a criminal, but you really can't be too careful.So guilty until proven innocent?? That's not the American way I know. Also, police don't usually state all of the detailsWhy? They are public servants are they not??, something that doesn't work in their favour as people start to second guess them.

Edited September 2, 2008 by fmccap

[suv_guy_19]

I believe that there is more to the story. Police do not and should not give all of the details. Though they may be paid by your taxes there is confidentiality involved in their work and there is no reason that they should give all of the details. Some of what they do is public record, but much of what they do isn't.

[mulewright]

No, not everyone is a criminal, but you really can't be too careful. Also, police don't usually state all of the details, something that doesn't work in their favour as people start to second guess them.

You're right, the police didn't give all the details.

 

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08243/908351-100.stm

 

Turns out the secret service had checked him out and weren't worried, he didn't enter the event area. The local cops decided to put on a show.