No. That is not my position. As a gun owner myself, as is my husband, to bring a gun to an emotionally, angry charged meeting in public such as this, is irresponsible. And while many are defending his right to carry, it was bad judgement on his part as none of us know if he is an extremist. Plus, bringing a gun into this kind of atmosphere makes a responsible gun owner such as I very uncomfortable. It was bad judgement on his part.
You’re a loon. An emotionally charged event with ACORN, SEIU and other union thugs is exactly when you make sure you carry.
So, just like the gun-banners, you're saying that people are too emotionally unstable to act like adults and control themselves and their violent impulses, and should not have the means to defend themselves at their disposal because they might use it to harm someone else?
That's the law of the jungle, not the rule of law.
Layers of Response by John Farnam
Years ago, Jeff Cooper delineated the “Color Code” and the “Principles of Personal Defense” in an effort to provide us with a logical model for one’s thinking on the subject of mental preparedness. I’d like now to go to the next step and apply the same logic to the issue of personal appearance and demeanor, as we all agree that, in the domestic defensive environment, avoiding a fight is preferable to winning one.
Layer One: Nonattendance. The best way to handle any potentially injurious encounter is:
Don’t be there. Arrange to be somewhere else. Don’t go to stupid places. Don’t associate with stupid people. Don’t do stupid things. This is the advice I give to all students of defensive firearms. Winning a gunfight, or any other potentially injurious encounter, is financially and emotionally burdensome. The aftermath will become your full-time job for weeks or months afterward, and you will quickly grow weary of writing checks to lawyer(s). It is, of course, better than being dead or suffering a permanently disfiguring or disabling injury, but the “penalty” for successfully fighting for your life is still formidable.
Crowds of any kind, particularly those with an agenda, such as political rallies, demonstrations, picket lines, etc are good examples of “stupid places.” Any crowd with a high collective energy level harbors potential catastrophe. To a lesser degree, bank buildings, hospital emergency rooms, airports, government buildings, and bars (particularly crowded ones) fall into the same category. All should be avoided. When they can’t be avoided, we should make it a practice to spend only the minimum time necessary there and then quickly get out.
“A superior gunman is best defined as one who uses his superior judgment in order to keep himself out of situations that would require the use of his superior skills.”
He may very well have exercised poor judgement, time will tell. However, with regard to the right to keep and bear arms, when is a good time?
According to the media, never.
My argument is that, if this person shows proper discretion and nothing comes of it, then he advanced the cause of restoring the right to keep and bear to its proper place.
That sounds like Nancy Pelosi logic to me. If ones right to bear arms somehow depends on whether somebody "knows if he is an extremist" then wouldn't it be perfectly logical to require that anyone who owned or carried a firearm be carefully vetted by the government and shown to not be "an extremist?" You know, something like a background check run by the FBI, ATF, etc and Nancy Pelosi gets to decide if you are "an extremist".
And maybe we should follow your logic further and require that protestors prove that they are not "extremists" before they get to hold up a sign, or even go anywhere near a political event. How about a permit from the government to hold up a sign? I hope you don't think that is a good idea too.
In New Hampshire we have a legal right to openly carry a firearm (with certain limitations of course). The person the media chose to highlight was simply exercising his rights. There were probably a number of other people in the crowd with concealed carry licenses, and they too were armed and exercising their rights.
I presume you aren't worried when you see a police officer openly carrying a firearm, why are you worried when you see a citizen doing the same thing?