Posted on 08/11/2009 11:12:37 AM PDT by kristinn
Police stationed at Portsmouth High School for President Barack Obama's visit this afternoon have had their hands full this morning.
According to Detective Lt. Corey MacDonald, one person has already been arrested for allegedly sneaking into the high school.
MacDonald, who is also assigned to work as the city's "intelligence officer," as a liaison to the Secret Service, told Foster's that police have also encountered a situation where a protestor was armed with some type of firearm. It is unclear if the person has been arrested.
A shift commander on duty at the Portsmouth Police Station has also confirmed one person is under arrest at the protest, but was unable to provide more details.
Also, WMUR is reporting that the Secret Service had a pickup truck towed from outside of Portsmouth High School this morning for security reasons.
“My biggest concern was some union thug knocking him down and shooting him with his own gun.”
Fat chance.
Do you know for a fact, that the secret service personnel knew he was no threat, or even a diversion of some sort? In the very least, it’s distracting for them, and they have a hard enough job as it is. You may want to direct those questions to someon with a legal background that can answer them. In my opinion, it was poor judgement, and just gives more ammunition to the media. I draw the line at common sense when open carrying.
Nice sidestep of my larger point - there are any number of potential threats using your criteria for disarming the locals when POTUS comes to town. But I invite you to read the other threads on FR posted about this subject to find out for yourself - he was a good distance away from Obama, so my question stands - where is the line drawn? A totalitarian doesn't have to worry about a citizen with a gun, they don't have any. Where do YOU say we should abridge rights on public thoroughfares?
Yes, I realise the larger point, but I still contend that it was poor judgement to carry open at this event. I also don’t like open carry in most events that have a lot of people crowded around, police and other security personnel on edge, the very biased press all over the place, and lots of people with their emotions piqued. I just do not believe this is the kind of place to carry open. All it takes, is someone yelling ‘gun’, and things can get stupid fast. I just don’t believe a weapon is something that should be used to make a point, especially when everyone knows it will antagonise lots of people. That’s just not what weapons are for, in my opinion.
Wait, someone was sneaking INTO a place where Obama was going to be???
Well, that's a different debate, and a fair one, where the issue is more neutral - open carry at a protest, versus curtailment of rights when POTUS is in the vicinity.
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090811/GJNEWS_01/708119863/-1/FOSNEWS
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090812/NEWS/908120365/-1/NEWSMAP
This is a DIFFERENT person than the person open carrying outside. This person entered the High School after it had been closed to the public, and initially swept, but caught by the Secret Service with a knife. His car, which was improperly in the parking lot, was scented by bomb sniffing dogs and towed for further testing. Inside they found an unregistered loaded gun. The person with the legal, registered, loaded gun protesting outside was not arrested.
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090812/NEWS/908120365/-1/NEWSMAP
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090811/GJNEWS_01/708119863/-1/FOSNEWS
So everyone is clear, this is not the person interview with the gun outside. This person was arrested in the building, after it had been closed by security, and was picked up by the Secret Service carrying a small knife. His car outside was then searched and they found an unregistered, loaded gun, for which he was arrested. The bomb sniffing dog detail scented on the car, and it was towed for further testing. The person with the legal, registered, loaded gun protesting outside was not arrested, although I am sure the Secret Service would prefer people not exercise their right to bear arms in the vicinity of the President.
MacDonald, who is also assigned to work as the city's "intelligence officer," as a liaison to the Secret Service, told Foster's that police have also encountered a situation where a protestor was armed with some type of firearm.
I am discussing the second person. The first person apparently was an idiot.
MacDonald, who is also assigned to work as the city's "intelligence officer," as a liaison to the Secret Service, told Foster's that police have also encountered a situation where a protestor was armed with some type of firearm.
I am discussing the second person. The first person apparently was an idiot.
As far as I’m concerned and as I mentioned numerous times, it never was about a curtailment of rights.
I'm sure they would. I'd prefer the Secret Service remember whom they guy they work for, works for.
And I am saying you are wrong in that regard - you broached the subject initially as a security matter, and that was what I responded to - where does the security perimeter end, then, with POTUS around? A deer rifle in a home 200 yards away is a much greater potential security risk than someone openly carrying a handgun 100 yards away - an average marksman can hit a target at 200 yards with a scoped rifle, whereas it's almost impossible to hit a target at 100 yards with a handgun. Where does the security perimeter end, then, along with the denial of rights such involves?
The USSS scouts the routes and views the nearby buildings trying to cover your sniper scenario.
I am amazed that you continue to show such a misunderstanding or lack of support on such a straight forward issue as presidential security.
Great, you say I’m wrong, I don’t.
The cops already told the Secret Service that the guy was carrying legally and was a fair distance aware from the president.
The USSS scouts the routes and views the nearby buildings trying to cover your sniper scenario.
Once again, I am discussing relative risk. A man with a handgun 100 yards away is very unlikely to hit what he is aiming at. A man with a scoped rifle 200 yards away has a very high chance of hitting a target. So the greater risk is from long guns at a greater distance. If security concerns are paramount over rights, using your 'logic', the SS should be allowed to search homes and make sure all guns are removed from private residences along the entire path of the motorcade.
What I am doing is showing just how absurd the arguments are here, from a security viewpoint, about someone engaging in open carry that far away from the president. There are much greater security risks, and the last three assasination attempts have been via illegal concealed carry.
I am amazed that you continue to show such a misunderstanding or lack of support on such a straight forward issue as presidential security.
I am amazed that you continue to show your ignorance of both the law in NH, the actual situation on the ground, and an abject ignorance of the relative risk of a handgun that far away from the president.
I can see you as USSS saying, gee we're sorry the president got shot, but we were following New Hampshire law. And besides, the last time we saw the guy he was a hundred yards away. How DID he then get so close? Opps!
A man with a handgun is MOBILE, remember yesterday some idiot tried to sneak into the building? So don't tell me how far away he was. The USSS has the responsibility to determine their own security perimeter, not wannabes on the internet.
And I am amazed at your misguided criticism of security concerns. Yesterday I took you and your friend to the woodshed on this issue and someone ran crying to the moderator. So the mod chastized me to lighten up. So I'm out. Declare victory and move on.
Like heck. You couldn't even keep track of what you had posted on the thread. Life is too short to attempt to debate a delusional idiot, so I give you the final word to give you one last opportunity to continue making a delusional idiot of yourself.
One last comment - this particular argument was just too indicative of your mindset to pass up - you are demanding a curtailment of rights because of what that person MIGHT do. That is the hallmark of the gun grabber - I legally can carry a weapon, and that right is enumerated by the 2nd Amendment, but Lord knows I might just get mad and shoot someone, so I should not have that right, just in case I might abuse it, my clean criminal record to the contrary. Meanwhile, the real danger, someone illegally carrying a concealed weapon clsoe to POTUS (as were the last three wannabee presidential assassins) show they will not obey your security rules that deny legal rights to the law-abiding.
As I figured, you are philosophically one with the Brady center in your approach to this subject. Yet in your opinion I'm the one getting taken to the woodshed on this thread. Yep, a self-delusional gun-grabbing liberal like you usually believes such when promoting curtailment of 2nd Amendment rights - even as the 2nd-Amendment proponents are ripping him to shreds and showing what a fearful and ignorant weenie he is.
I thought you were giving the last word to nufsed?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.