PavePusher
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
How do you determine "close proximity"? From my understanding, the man was some distance away, certainly out of pistol shot range, and with no direct line-of-sight.
Also, it seems to me that the "close proximity" excuse is perilously over the line of "some pigs is more equal than other pigs" (NOT a reference to the slang term for police!) philosophy, which I believe is a large part of this nations' current problems. The President should not trump Constitutional Rights, in fact, the moral high ground would be for him to embrace such. If a person is deemed to be a danger to the president, then they should be kept away from him/her. But the mere act of peacefully exercising Civil Rights should not be the determining factor.
LEO 229 wrote:
hsmith wrote:I have not determined anything. It is general common sense that many people would conclude on their own when you are in close proximity of the POTUS. We can look back in history and see all the prior attempts in causing the POTUS harm. Men armed with guns.So, are you on this committe that determines when it is ok to carry a firearm?
Do you know when crimes are going to be committed?
He hasn't "caused harm" to anything - gun haters will hate guns no matter what. I don't get why you think that anything will change their minds.
Activists on the left push their agenda non-stop and they move the ball forward. The longer gun owners want to sit like cowards and hope that people don't get offended, the quicker we will lose all rights.
If you are so scared of crime.. stay home. Erect a 10 feet fence, install spot lights, and employ motion detectors.
A piss poor attempt to justify being there armed IMO... :lol:
How do you determine "close proximity"? From my understanding, the man was some distance away, certainly out of pistol shot range, and with no direct line-of-sight.
Also, it seems to me that the "close proximity" excuse is perilously over the line of "some pigs is more equal than other pigs" (NOT a reference to the slang term for police!) philosophy, which I believe is a large part of this nations' current problems. The President should not trump Constitutional Rights, in fact, the moral high ground would be for him to embrace such. If a person is deemed to be a danger to the president, then they should be kept away from him/her. But the mere act of peacefully exercising Civil Rights should not be the determining factor.