Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Armed Men Seen Outside Barack Obama Event
A dozen people carrying guns, including at least two with assault rifles, were seen mingling among protesters outside a convention centre where President Barack Obama was speaking.
The incident in Phoenix raised fears that the heated debate over his reform agenda could lead to deadly violence.
A dozen people carrying guns, including at least two with assault rifles, were seen mingling among protesters outside a convention centre where President Barack Obama was speaking. (Photo: AP) Phoenix police said the men carrying guns at Monday's event did not need permits, as the state of Arizona has an "open carry" law. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.
One of the men carrying a rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.
Detective J. Oliver, who was monitoring the man at the downtown protest, said police wanted to make sure no one decided to attempt to harm Mr Obama.
"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Det Oliver said.
"We were keeping peace on both ends."
The other rifle-carrier, a smartly dressed man who appeared to be in his late 20s, had an AR15 slung over his shoulder.
Mr Obama was speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars about improving benefits for veterans, and thanking the armed services for their sacrifice.
But even a non-controversial event attracted lively protests for and against the president, notwithstanding the presence of so many armed civilians.
It was the latest incident where gun-carriers have been spotted outside events where the president has appeared, usually to tout his health care reform plans on an increasingly dubious public.
Right-wing opponents have denounced the proposals, which could introduce a government-run health insurance company, as an assault on liberty.
The election of a Democrat and the first black president, who is suspected of being a devout liberal by many on the right, has set off fears that he will increase gun control, raise taxes and increase the role of government.
Last week, during a town hall meeting on health care in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, a man carrying a sign reading "It is time to water the tree of liberty" stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.
Paul Helmke, president of the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is.
"To me, this is craziness," he said. "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone."
He said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening," he said.
Patricia Murphy, a political columnist, told CNN: "To me this is absolutely terrifying. This entire debate is inching closer and closer to a place people don't want to think about, where anger will turn to violence.
Joe Klein, a veteran political reporter now with Time magazine, said: "In 40 years I have never seen anything like this. There is a right to bear arms but there is a right to protect the president."
51 Comments so far
Show AllSomehow I am reminded of the incident in Phoenix this past April. Citizens angry over police camera/radar enforcement attacked the decoy van housing the cameras and killed the operator. Vigilante justice making a statement.
So the police were or are in part responsible for the killing of the camera or camera-van operator. After all, if the vehicle was indeed used as a decoy, then it's because the police anticipated that it and possibly the persons inside of it would be attacked, or that there was a serious likelihood of attacks; and they apparently or evidently left the operator unprotected, without any police security.
The operator's family should sue the police responsible for this death due to criminal police negligence.
And of course this isn't to say that the attackers who killed the operator are at all innocent, for they're definitely guilty. But the police were and clearly remain guilty, too. They had the ability to easily enough prevent such attacks from seriously endangering the life of the operator.
So, guilty as charged!
Same in New Mexico, you can carry a gun in public if it's visible, just not in a bar or certain other places.
Yes it distracts police and Secret Service, as they follow them around. These people are obviously making a statement. I don't think they are any more likely to start shooting than somebody with a concealed weapon.
Yes it riles some people up; kind of looks like the Middle East.
I wouldn't do it! The way he is carrying it somebody could take it from him and shoot him with his own gun! If it's loaded.
There's a time to be "in-yo'-face", and a time not to be. I expect some left-wing Democrat in Congress to introduce a bill making it a federal felony (with steep penalties) to bring a weapon like that to a public event featuring the president, even if it's legal by state law and even if the armed protester did not intend to use it for an assassination attempt.
If it is legal to bring a gun like that to an event featuring the president, then I think it should be legal to bring a gun like that into courts houses, congress, and the White House. If people in our government think that it is a good idea for citizens to walk around with guns strapped to their sides, then they should allow it to be done in their own back yards.
To sit there in buildings protected by metal detectors and security guards from Americans that are legally allowed to carry guns is VERY hypocritical to me. If I have to walk around feeling uncomfortable by gun toting individuals then they should too.
And lets face it that is the whole point of carrying an exposed weapon. It intimidates other people. I'm badder than you are and don't you forget it.
Metal detectors and security guards are not really there to protect people, but the contents of the building (paper work, digital files, etc). People are not worth anything and are easily replaced, but information is priceless (and the source of all political/financial power).
Thank you WTF. Anyone who's worked for globaltransnationals knows this is true. An employee can be getting mugged in the parking lot 100 feet from the guard shack and company outsourced security will do nothing about it because their job is to man the x-ray machine to prevent theft of company materials. Employees have to just take their chances because patrols are not stepped up in the parking lot at night, and the employees are not allowed to arm themselves because the lot is company property. The bad guys know this, and prey on defenseless employees.
In public, however, it should be a different ball game, where the public does not have to sneak around afraid of a sick cop who likes to taser protesters. Cops behave very differently when they know protesters are armed. I find this whole thing tremendously refreshing. In Arizona, the government is afraid of the people instead of the other way around. At the Republican and Democratic convention, protesters where abused because they weren't armed since it was on private property. We need to bring back the concept of the Commons.
The Reagan/Brady-Bunch anti-gun group is exaggerating as usual, because it has always been illegal to carry a loaded firearm across a federal road (or a federally funded road, which is most of them) : so these "armed dissidents" must not be "keeping and bearing" LOADED arms. They are simply exercising their constitutional rights and I love it. The only sad thing is that most of these guys are Rush-the-Druggie listeners and don't have the whole picture since AM radio is corporate owned.
But it's a good start. All Liberals should legally arm themselves to the teeth while it's still legal. Crime will go way down immediately because the armed bad guys are cowards at heart and don't relish the idea of a defenseless old lady pulling a round over their heads to protect herself when she is alone.
Guns are a little dangerous, but Look guys, we have to give up our perfect safety if we want Liberty. Those two things just don't go together. There was a good reason the founders put the second amendment in there. So that gov goons didn't turn into Redcoats and abuse the population.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I reckon you have a valid point, NC-Tom. I read an article from Time just this morning which quoted a former Secret Service man as saying that if the Feds started handcuffing everyone with a gun at these events, "they'd have battles on their hands".
When the people fear the government, we have tyranny; vice versa, we have freedom. And I hope the Feds realize that they'd better start handling the gun owners with kid gloves, if they touch them at all.
"Mr Obama was speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars..."
Mr. Obama is *always* speaking to violence oriented organizations like the VFW, Naval Academy and such.
Mr. Obama is NEVER speaking to, say, Code Pink or the Iraq Veterans Against the War.
So it is hardly surprising that people with guns appear where he speaks.
Can you imagine what would have happened if someone brought a gun to a Bush appearance? They'd be dead.
Interesting times.
YES! Good point!!
What is being tolerated (and even encouraged) now that we have a Black President is very scary.
Wonder if that's what "they" hoped would happen?
You can see that the guy with the gun is "black" (or at least dark-skinned) right?
Obama's "Black"-ness has little to do with this, I expect.
Or maybe they'd be up on the stage with Bush pointing the gun at the audience.
Guns don't kill people; T-shirts kill people!
(I guess....)
This incident is outrageous and it makes me angry!
How many times have we (lefty protesters) been threatened with arrest (or actually been arrested) for carrying a stick?
Yeah! Sticks with signs attached on top are/were considered to be "dangerous weapons".
WTF is going on in the U.S. of A. these days?
This is madness! And the hypocrisy of the police is breathtaking!
Can you imagine what would happen if a few demonstrators packed guns to a global economic justice demonstration or the like? Considering the long history of police brutality toward even completely peaceful unarmed demonstrators we already know the answer.
For the G20 here in Pittsburgh, all permits for perfectly peaceful, unarmed protests held by people who don't even own any guns, have being denied. It didn't even matter that one of the organizers was a state senator.
There's the factor of the laws of the individual States to consider here.
In Arizona, carrying a legally-owned firearm in public spaces is perfectly legal as long as it is openly done -even the AR15 (At least this is my understanding form a quick Nets check).
That seems to have been the point of the whole action -or at least the one man's quote would indicate that.
Permits for large protests at closed events, and the treatment that such protesters recieve from various police agencies -Municipal, County, State, Federal, joint- are a completely separate issue, and examples of that don't really work as a comparison. There's a whole kettle of fish there that could easily distract us from the point here (Ex. the role confrontational tactics and poor organization and discipline on the part of protest leaders plays in official and police response and anticipation to such actions).
The real comparison/test of hypocrisy for this situation would be for LEFTIST protesters to emulate these men EXACTLY.
The next time the Prez is in your town -and if that town is in some place that has gun-carrying laws like Arizona- you should get your friends together an pack some heat, just like these fellows did. Show the World that the Left isn't about to be cowed by this sort of thing while simultaneously testing whether this treatment is do to police prejudice for the Right, or truly due to legal Rights.
But, do you and your friends even OWN firearms? Do ANY group of Lefties? Does this seem like a problem "balance of power"-wise to anybody?
-matti.
The President needs to turn up the heat on this health care campaign. It's clear when you see paranoid racist marginal right wing lunatics toting guns at a rally that this isn't about health care. It's about the fact that these wing nuts lost the election and are just starting to realize they have a President they cannot identify with. Incidents like this would not happen if the President were of the Caucasian persuasion.
Change is scary, and there are changes happening in the world and this country that have some people on pins and needles. Hold on cause it's going to get worse. What will need to happen is the liberals will have to get in the face of these right wing nut jobs, who aren't true Americans and call them out on their lies, their propaganda and their fear mongering. President Obama needs to apply some bite behind his bark, but more so his supporters need to become more visible. I'm a gun toting proud liberal and I have no qualms about showing up at a rally to back the President.
I remember when Nixon had the Whitehouse completely surrounded with bumper to bumper DC busses to keep the demonstrators from storming the place. (I think that was November 1969?). Anyway, at the same time, he had sandbagged military machine gun nests placed on the Justice Department steps.
At the time, I kept thinking "What would happen if a police provocateur fired a handgun from the crowd at these young soldiers?" This was of course before Kent State. While there were plenty of pictures of the busses, I never saw a picture of the machine gun nests that I personally witnessed. (Those were the days before digital cameras and you never brought much stuff, let alone a camera, to a demonstration.)
Anyway, what would happen at one of these events if a provocateur attacked these armed people? I can think of nothing good happening which would be just what the provocateur would want. Probably the only saving grace is that most provocateurs are either working for the police or the right wing, and they would not want to attack their own kind. That is, there are no peace demonstrators to discredit.
I can understand President Nixon's actions and his behavior. He was crazy. And I'm not saying that as an insult. This was a man who was drunk when he ordered the bombing of Cambodia. He used to sit in the White House drunk in the month of July with the fireplace roaring and the air conditioner on at the same time. He was also paranoid.
The beauty of having rallys today is how well they can be documented. Counter demonstrations can be recorded so, in case some of the provocaters made trouble there is proof of guilt and innocence. Looking at President Obama, I think he's still attempting to be all inclusive, as it should be in America, even though the right keeps slapping his extended hand. President Obama is going to have to come to terms with the fact that he's dealing with a seccesionalist mind set that has departed the United States in almost everyway but physical.
Good post Wolfhound.
But I see it a little different. I see many sectors of the country unhappy with the bank-robbing government. Not just the right wing. The Left wing is unhappy too. Libertarians, the third biggest party (of which I am one) are unhappy too. Workers are unhappy. The military is unhappy.
This Octopus Federal Government no longer answers to the people at all. It is only concerned with expanding itself and it's absolute power over the defenseless citizens. We need to cut it down by 90 percent and start over.
TJ
"I am no friend to 'Riots, Tumults, and unlawful Assemblies... But when the People are oppress'd, when their Rights are infring'd, when their property is invaded, when taskmasters are set over them, when unconstitutional acts are executed by a naval force before their eyes, and they are daily threatened with military troops, when their legislature is dissolv'd!.... in such circumstances the people will be discontented, and they are not to be blamed." Samuel Adams (writing as "Determinatus") Boston Gazette August 8, 1768
America is not worth saving.
wcdevins,
America is not a place. It is a set of ideals that one should not have to live under the jackboot of tyranny.
Liberty is worth fighting for.
TJ
I just love this.
Why these armed 'citizens' showing up a Obama 'gatherings' is a surprise to ANYONE is a surprise to me.
The nation is in turmoil over 'health care reform', the 'economy', 'job's 'the wars' (you are loosing), Mike Vic and his new "Football team"-----(I just threw that one in for fun) yada yada yada.
The 'greatest nation' on the planet, has a 'known' "world class criminal cabal" that were 'replaced' just eight months ago, and very few 'citizens' are making the necessary moves to address the problem. This "criminal cabal" is directly responsible for conspiring to kidnap, torture, and kill foreign nationals from the 'capital Washington DC---and for the crimes to take place in foreign territory. The same 'cabal', after violating international treaties--- is directly responsible for lying and misleading the world with false 'intelligence' to go to war and destroying an entire nation in the process, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, laying waste to an ancient city and its historical treasures---then destroying the environment for centuries---all for the enrichment of a very few, large, american owned corporations.
And now, some marginally intelligent poorly informed redneck 'representatives of a free country' show up at a 'gathering' ARMED and it is a 'surprise'.
What should be the 'surprise' is that a 'criminal nation such as the USA has been allowed to survive as long as it has without intervention by the rest of the world.
But then, human nature being what it is. The rest of the world simply needs to reach its limit of toleration of the 'Criminal Nation USA'. When that happens, the USA will become the 'footnote in history' and remembered for the actual representation that they are: the worst humanity can produce and THE negative example for history.
It is simply a matter of time now.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
What an outstanding post! Thanks, Native Son!
You can see from the photo that one of your so-called "marginally intelligent poorly informed redneck(s)" is in fact dark-skinned (likely African of ethnic orgin) and wearing both glasses and office-casual clothes, not cammo and a ballcap, right?
From the other's quote in the artcle you can see that he is quite well-informed, at least as to Arizona Law, correct?
So that's two of your stereotypes shot down right off the bat ("poorly informed" and "redneck" -ya can't be a "black redneck" dude, sorry), as well as some hints that the first, "marginally intelligent" may be way off as well (if we engage in a bit of stereotyping ourselves, at least). Real refutation of that would require a longer interview with these fellows than we see here.
Just because you are (or seem to be) a fellow Lefty, does NOT give you a pass to confuse the issue and misrepresent the situation with stupid, lazy, stereotypes.
At least not in my book.
Don't sweat it, everybody makes mistakes,
-matti.
Here is a stupid question: is it legal to point a gun at somebody, say - the president?
What if it's not loaded?
No. That is at a minimum assault (a threat of violence). In some places it also is "brandishing a firearm", a "terroristic act", or "assault with a deadly weapon". Loaded/not loaded only matters if the victim knows it's not loaded.
It's "funny" how gun-freedom USA'ns reveal themselves. F.e., in several of the reader posts made, so far, in this CD page, people complain about U.S. law allowing people, citizens anyway, attending public events where the U.S. President is to speak, or at least be present on his or her way to an event that'll be indoors, bearing loaded guns. These are the only events these CD readers have indicated their disagreement with such "freedom" law.
Well, guns should not be allowed at [any] public events and this applies with concealed and non-concealed guns. The only exception I'd make is for public events that are about guns, such as some sort of exhibit show, an auction of guns or an auction including sales of guns along with other items, ... There is no sane reason to carry guns at any other kind of public event and I wouldn't carry a gun to events about guns, either; if I was ever going to attend such events, which is unlikely.
Why is the President more important than other citizens? They're not more important, not if we consider that they basically never are real Presidents; they're puppets, figureheads, ... controlled by the real ruling "elites", influencers, manigancers, .... If ever a President acts against the "masters", then he or she isn't going to be President much longer after crossing over the line and stepping on the "wrong" toes.
Who the heck wants to maintain a criminal President; whether he or she be Obama, Bush Jr, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, and many, many ... others; probably most others? Of course killing them isn't the way democracy should work for disposing of rotten, rogue Presidents, but I nevertheless wouldn't place much importance on citizens carrying guns at events at which Obama or the U.S. President is to speak. That is, I wouldn't place more importance on this just because the President's going to be present; because I care for the safety of [everyone], and the President is again another rogue one, war criminal, LIAR, and so on, anyway.
If he's assassinated, then it'll just be more "Ho-hum. The President's been assassinated, dear. And, btw, what is on your agenda today, do you feel like going on a picnic, just the two of us, or also bring the children along, or even invite some friends or other family members and bring a few six-packs of some good microbrew (depending on how many of us will be going), along with some good herb? Oh yah, let's not forget the herb. The weather forecasters are saying it'll be a beautiful day and if we go to a good spot for it, then I'll bring some fishing gear along too. If you don't feel like going, then I'll make myself a little picnic in the backyard because I'm feeling ... uhmmmm hungry, but there aren't any fish there. So what do you say about a picnic at a nice location with some good, healthy fish, dear, cherie? If you don't want to go, then I'm going anyway and I'll see you tonight, or when ... ever." news.
Yah, it'd be just another of those types of news days.
Imagine the reaction if someone carried an assault rifle outside a "Bloomberg for Mayor" rally, for instance? The police would be all over him in an instant.
As much as Obama is doing a Vichy, has abandoned his supporters and is playing along with the moneyed and the right wing, he is still in personal danger from them. I am sure some of the police would not be too upset if shots were fired.
What a fool, what a tool. Despite the good looks and the brains, he has become kind of sad and contemptible.
Joe
Remember that different States have different laws in regards to firearms.
The National Rifle Association is arguably the most powerfully organized citizens group in the country. It's powerful enough that it can get insane state gun right laws passed like the one we see in Arizona.
Imagine, instead, if the most powerful citizens group was The Nation Single Payer Advocacy Association.
The comparison yields a frightening profile of the American character.
Laws don't give rights, they only take them away.
The NRA is practically run by Handgun Control Incorporated - they actually support gun control laws lately. Other organizations have taken up the slack, but the truth of the matter is nearly everyone wants more gun rights, not fewer.
Health care is another topic. Health care is the product of someone's labor. Making that a right is merely a form of slavery.
You seem to have a real problem with liberty, don't you? You really want people's lives to be "controlled." Fascists from Hitler to Stalin shared your views (on both issues).
"Health care is the product of someone's labor. Making that a right is merely a form of slavery."
HA! What a B.S. argument!
The Right to a free Press is also contigent on someone else's labor. Even though you may run the Press yourself, you wouldn't reasonably expect to have built it, would you? Or cut down the trees/harvest the hemp to make the paper either, right? So, someone else's labor is involved in that free Press, yet it is a Right.
The Right to bear Arms is the same. Arms are a "product of someone's labor".
Do you believe that making the bearing of Arms a Right is "merely a form of slavery"?
Obviously, the Right to Health Care would be the Right to reasonable and AVAILABLE Health Care. No compulsion would be involved what-so-ever, let alone "slavery" or anything similar to what "Hitler or Stalin" got up to.
Try harder next time, please.
-matti.
"The Right to a free Press is also contigent on someone else's labor."
Not in the slightest. It doesn't say you have a right to have a paper. That is as absurd as...welll.....saying you have a right to health care.
It is scarey how much you fail to grasp this very simple concept. Try to get your parents to explain it to you.
"Laws don't give rights, they only take them away."
Incorrect. Societal laws have nothing to do with human rights, which are inalienable. Laws exist to protect individuals from predators.
WTF is going on?
Just a couple of years ago, even a cardboard sign of dissent at a Bush/Cheney event would get you arrested by the secret service.
Now, assault rifles only yards away from Obama?
Considering the Reich-wing rage being whipped up by Limpdick, Trannie Coulter, Beck, et al, having loaded guns at these events is like throwing gasoline on a fire.
We are only minutes away from one of those foaming-at-the-mouth guntoting dittoheads from becoming the next Lee Harvey Oswald.
I'm told you can now take pills to make your penis larger. I mean, if that's the issue here, wouldn't taking the pills be easier than lugging an assault rifle around with you?
Why do all these posts assume that the owner of the assault rifle is a right-winger?
Would you feel better about it if the man's intention was to protect O'Bummer from armed right-wingers, not to threaten him?
What if his presence there was to give notice that some on the left, or even square in the middle, are also armed?
Technically, at least the ones in NH, are "free-staters" who are avid libertarians. They are always advocating "open carry" and sometimes really drive the cops nuts. It certainly makes others, especially people with young children, a little nervous to see them carrying their guns in parks and other places.
Just like it makes a lot of people nervous to see cops carrying their guns and Tasers around. Or the national guard carrying their machine guns in the airports.
Your second paragraph really hits at the main issue I see here, and my main problem with much of the posts on this thread.
If ordinary Citizens openly -and legally- carrying firearms bothers one so damned much, then shouldn't police officers, federal agents, National Guardsmen, and military folks bother one just as much, if not MORE?
Worry over armed Citizens with an implied lack of concern over armed Cops and Feds smells a lot like unconscious "upper-middle suburbanite white-people" prejudice to me.
The only problem I see here is that the Left has been conditioned to see their OWN Right to bear Arms as some kind of threat to THEMSELVES, which is just very strange.
And yes, I know all about the "gun in the house being more a danger to oneself and one's family than any intruder or whatever" statistics. I'm not disputing them. And AR15 over your back out in public seems more in the lines of a Citizen's Militia, from my POV, and that's a whole different thing then a loaded pistol in the nightstand.
-matti.
That's it. Back to the wild, wild west. Have a dispute with someone? Don't call 911, just challenge him to a draw. If he's yella, just plug him. May the most macho and fasted-on-the-draw win. Call it citizen justice. I can't see a thing wrong with that.
So, I suppose you would claim that your instant resort to half-a-dozen stereotypes is NOT a result of conditioning?
Nor would the assumption implicit in those stereotypes that I am some sort of right-wing "gun-nut" cowboy, just because I call the Left's fear of its OWN Right "strange", be a result of such conditioning, correct?
Sure.
Since you missed it: I'm an advocate for a Citizen's Militia. Since I did't make it clear before: I mean INSTEAD of the police. I mean as UPHOLDERS of the Law.
I certainly do NOT advocate a "wild-west" condition of might makes right.
What I DO question, however, is the assuption that we, on the Left, can rely anymore on the police and the agents of the Empire to protect us from those who ARE for such a condition?
Why don't you share my doubts?
Did something -anything- in the actions of the Imperialists or the various police agencies over the last 30-plus years convince you that they ARE on our side?
-matti.
Excellent post matti.
The Constitutions of the Colonies passed before the (Articles of Confederation and then) the US Constitution in 1789, (where the Second Amendment came from) made it clear that was the intent: For citizens to maintain possession of their own firearms and drill in well regulated militias to ward off Indians and Redcoats alike.
Article XIII of the Virginia Declaration of Rights states:
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state: that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty: and that , in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to , and be governed by, the civil power."
source: George Mason's First Draft of the Viginia Declaration of Rights.
Get back to your roots. Get armed. Go to a shooting range. Form a Militia. It is legal as per the highest law in the land. It is your right. Use it or lose it. Is it dangerous? Not as dangerous as driving your car according to statistics. You are from the home of the brave. Act like it.
TJ
You were clear the first time. Untrained, uninformed people enforcing the "laws" according to their individual impressions of right and wrong. Replace police and courts with guns. White hat/black hat. That's the wild west.
It DOES bother me a lot to see authority figures carry guns in public. Before 9/11, the only place you would see assault rifle carrying officials were in foreign countries.
If I were to open carry, don't you think the cops would be a lot faster to shoot me if they thought that I was any sort of threat? There have been many incidents of people being shot by cops merely because they reached into their coat to get their wallet! (And the exonerated cops just said that they thought that the person was reaching for a gun.)
Carrying your own weapon would not protect you from a trigger happy cop. On the contrary, it would make you more likely to be harmed.
Perhaps the most scary people in America are our corps of Homeland Security personnel. Somehow, they do not make me feel more secure. Except that I am relieved that no grandmother will have more than 3 oz of shampoo with her. That perfume can be a real killer.
I wonder what would happen if a couple showed up, both American citizens but were practicing Muslims, and the guy was wearing a keffiyeh (the Palestinian scarf) and the woman was wearing a burkha, but both were carrying rifles, as is their legal right as American citizens in open carry states?
Wouldn't a Palestinian woman be wearing a chador, not a burkha (assuming she is Shia Muslim, that is)?
Its only the really "hillbilly" Pashtuns that force their women into the burkha.
But still an interesting proposal.
I suggest just such an experiment at Obama's NEXT appearance in an "open-carry" State.
Correction, it's the Hijab, the head scarf that some western Muslim women wear, that I was referring to, thanks.
Enough Bush protesters got billy clubbed that I think the guy with the AK never would of had a chance.
So yea, what gives that Obama's administration is looking the other way?
I know, he doesn't want to give the impression he is against guns!
*********
That could be an Arizona tan too.