It looks to me like Obama and his media friends are trying to make a big issue out of open carry by going to open carry states (New Hampshire, Arizona.. etc) for his "town hall" meetings...
The Obama people must know what the state's laws are before they visit - so why are they making a stink out of the fact that people carry weapons in these states? That is their right and they are not breaking any laws - nor are they making any trouble - and they certainly aren't looking to shoot anyone!
In this sense the Obama administration is being quite transparent. It is pretty plain to see that the Obama administration is looking to get open carry banned, especially at events like these ... and they are purposely causing a stir by going to states that are open carry and then making a stink about it when people show up who have a right to open carry in their state.
If anything - these folks carrying weapons to these presidential events (and by the way, they aren't anywhere near the president) - should charge the White House for acting as extra security for the president's safety! As well as others!
I remember when I was in New Hampshire for the New Hampshire Liberty Forum in 2008, staying at the same hotel that John McCain was staying at during the primary - and his staff went absolutely nuts that folks were carrying guns in the hotel. They complained to the hotel, and the staff merely informed them that this was the law in New Hampshire! P.S. John McCain was not harmed, and the only commotion that was created was by his staffers.
Given what the Union thugs have been doing at these rallies (like assaulting disabled people) - it seems like a good idea that at least some people in the crowd have firearms to protect themselves and others around them from possible union assaults!
If Obama and his media don't approve of open carry laws and are frightened by law abiding citizens, then why don't they go visit some other states that don't alarm them as much? Seems like the President and his media are a bit paranoid. I hope he doesn't really think that citizens have to lose their rights just because he comes to town.
And it is funny how the media doesn't get so hysterical over the number of heavily-armed bodyguards carrying concealed weapons!
But so let's recap - because this is really starting to get interesting:
- Even though it is your right to carry a gun - don't bring it anywhere near where the President (or maybe even where any official) might venture because that just "increases the danger to everyone" - so don't exercise your right to open carry.Don't you see your rights evaporating?
- Even though you have a right to free speech you shouldn't tell the President (or maybe even any official) that he is wrong because it just increases hostility - so don't exercise your right to free speech.
- Even though it is your right to assemble in groups you shouldn't do that because you are perceived as being "a mob" and that makes other people (including government officials) nervous - so don't get together with like minded individuals to exercise your right to free assembly; stay at home.
- Even though you have a write to free press - blogging, writing letters or editorials, and engaging in any other activity which convey strong opinions about various issues just makes other people mad - so don't write or read stuff that might be deemed "offensive"; don't exercise that freedom of the press.
But back to this rally in Arizona and the one in New Hampshire:
Let's see.... no crimes committed and no arrests made. What a story! So this must demonstrate that law abiding gun owners are not a bunch of nuts; they are just people exercising their rights and attending a peaceable rally.
It would seem that the anti-gun people just can't stand it, and might even be hoping that shots are fired. Who knows...with all the purported plants at these events...I truly hope that they don't engineer some sort of incident in order to usher in more useless gun control laws. (States with less restrictive laws have less crime - that's a fact)
By the way - did you know gun control laws were designed to disarm Slaves, Freedmen, and African-Americans? It was an act of racism. Also ... The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, cleared the way for World War II and Nazi genocide against the Jews, Gypsies and millions of others. Firearms ownership was restricted to members of the Nazi party and other "reliable" people. It is speculated that US lawmakers like Senator Thomas J. Dodd even implanted parts of the Nazi Weapons Law into American law (The Gun Control act of 1968).
Gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense.
"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms." - Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840
"Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia..." - George Mason (In Virginia's Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:379-380)
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." - George Washington (Address to 1st session of Congress)
"Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state." Connecticut Constitution Article First SEC. 15.