That guy in NH should have been arrested for

[John Q. Citizen]

upsetting the sensibilities of some people at DU.

That may not be a crime, but damn it, it should be! </sarcasm>

[countingbluecars]

1. He should be arrested

for threatening the safety of the President of the United States.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. Did he make a threat?

[countingbluecars]

6. I think so.

The words on his sign, the gun, the anger in the crowd-yes.

[slackmaster]

9. Apparently neither the local police nor the Secret Service agree with countingbluecars

:shrug:

[countingbluecars]

12. He may not have been arrested,

but I'm betting that the Secret Service view this guy as a threat to the President.

[razorman]

14. Perhaps. But if they considered it necessary, I'm sure they would have detained him.

As it was, you know they were watching him very closely, aside from all the cameras on him the whole time. Since he was open and visible, they probably figured they could control the situation. The one they need to worry about more is the person in the crowd who might have a hidden weapon. This guy at least seemed to have sense enough not to make any sudden moves that might give them an excuse to take him down.

[slackmaster]

18. I'm sure they kept a close watch on him

That is their job.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. I they perceived him as a credible threat they would have acted

[rd_kent]

46. I'm betting they don't.

If they did, he would have been picked up.

[John Q. Citizen]

15. The words on his sign quoted T. Jefferson. Should Jefferson have been impeached, in your opinion,

for saying those words?

Because it sounds as if you feel those words are crime to express.

Am I correct that you believe that expressing those words are a crime?

[countingbluecars]

21. Of course it is not a crime

to express those words. But combining those words, a gun, and an angry crowd was a threat to the President IMO. Not to mention, I get sick of people twisting words to justify bigotry and hate. We just had an election. They lost.

[John Q. Citizen]

25. They lost political power but they didn't lose constituional protections.

I disagree that the person posed a threat to Obama, and apparently Obama's security people and the local cops made the samme assesment.

His threat was the same threat that someone who burns a flag poses to the self satisfied patriot who becomes very uncomfortable, angry, hostile, or, well, threatened that someone would burn a flag.

Rights only mean something when uncomfortable people can't take them away from who is causing their discomfort through exercising those rights.

[PavePusher]

52. What is the limit on the number of Civil Rights...

one may exercise simultaneously, before it becomes a crime?

Or do you want to go back to "Free Speech Zones"?

This whole debate is becoming incredibly Orwellian... ON THE WRONG SIDE!

[PavePusher]

39. So, exercising two Civil Rights at once...

is a crime now.

How very... Republican of you.

[rd_kent]

45. Your words and the anger on DU can get you areested then?

[islandmkl]

3. actually...the guy should have pulled the gun into his hand...

so we can see just exactly how these matters will play out...

DU sensibilities are not the issue...nor are 'right to carry' laws...

remove the questions of 'intent', etc...just put the gun in your hand and find out how it all plays out...

[John Q. Citizen]

13. My friend says they try not to use the word should at his house. It implies humiliation.and

manipulation through guilt.

I love people who get other people thinking about what our constitution really is, what it really means. From the flag burners to the gun carriers these are people who put their lives literally on the line to exercise their rights.

And the people they upset always profess to be real Americans, yet the people they upset don't ever see their own hypocrisy. Never.

Is it legal if the President does it? Or is it only legal if you like the President who is doing it? Or is there the rule of law, and no one is above the law whether you like them or not?

It's days like this that show us who we are as a community and as individuals.


Guess what? NH has an open carry law. If you don't like it, change it or don't go to NH. My guess is Obama has no problem with it. Obama supports the rights of individuals to bear arms, he's said so repeatedly. And he went to NH

I've never particularly liked to hang around places that have open carry laws. I don't own a gun. The last time i shot a gun was a shotgun at a Sportsmen for Obama event in Missoula during the primary. Out local Obama organizer and the state organizer put it together and they asked me if I would come and shoot some clay pigeons. So we did. It was OK.

So when some people get very upset that an individual has the right to bear arms and does so, it seems to me that they would be mad at that guy AND at Obama. But of course they just don't get that part.

Like I said, stuff like this is a litmus test for who really respects the rule of law, the constitution and who only gives lip service when it's easy and convenient.

[islandmkl]

26. from my response on another post...

...people who RESPECT guns DO NOT wear them provocatively - and claim to be 'exercising' their rights...

yeah, he was breaking no laws...except the laws of common sense...

I'll add: Guess what? There is no law against conflating constitutional 'questions'...the right to bear arms is not in question here, and you know it...

this guy was wearing his firearm IN FULL PUBLIC VIEW TO MAKE A STATEMENT...and that statement was not "protect 2nd Amendment rights", and one does not have PRESUME TO READ HIS MIND to know that...

did your 'friend' tell you that the guy got NOBODY thinking about 'what our Constitution really is' because that isn't the question?

not to go against the advice of your 'friend', but you should explore the true concerns expressed about this idiot, and quit trying to find some angle, "constitutional" as is your choice here, to inject some faux aspect to the discussion...

[John Q. Citizen]

29. I don't advocate flag burning, either. But if someone does it safely, that's tough i guess.

I understand that this guy in NH upsets you. i also support your right to feel upset.

But i don't support violating this guy's right because he's a jerk, imo. He can wear his gun outside beyond the federally established legal perimeter, even if I don't like it.

[islandmkl]

34. actually...you are ASSUMING i'm upset...which is not the case, at all...

i grew up with (among other things):

*a firm education in the Constitution (thanks to a father who felt rights were the most important thing for people to have and share)

*a belief in personal responsibility

*a life-long involvement with guns

One who respects guns, what they represent, what they can allow one to accomplish...does not parade a gun around in public for any reason.

Except to make a statement.

This is not about the legal right.

This is about common sense. And people have the right to perceive this asshats actions as threatening, if they feel threatened.

As is so often the case, what is legal is merely a step away (a couple of pounds of finger pressure in this situation) from a very different matter.

What did this guy accomplish, what was his motive?

I'm not the least upset.

I just find it hard to believe that a matter of common sense and respect for guns has, somehow, become a 'constitutional question' dialogue.

BTW: Purely hypothetically: what if he had bumped into someone, who felt he was 'pushing them' and reacted as if the gun-toter was assaulting them? The tensions are high at these events. Where would that have led us today?

[John Q. Citizen]

35. It was your upper case letters that I mistook for yelling in the previous post that led

me to believe you were upset.

What if a meteor hit the US? Gosh I'm glad it didn't or we wouldn't be typing back and forth.


if you don't like the open carry law New Hampshire has, then move there and change it. Or you cna complain about it also, that's your right.

But your values as far as guns go (you were taught that states that pass open carry laws are bad states?) while interesting, are kind of like your opinions on who will win the world series.

Thanks for sharing.

By the way, that guy did openly carry his holstered gun around yesterday and if you don't like it there isn';t much you can do about it.

Would you want to be able to do something about it? If so, what would that be?

[PavePusher]

40. So you are saying that a Civil Right may be exercised...

but that it must remain hidden?

I really don't understand the logic.

"One who respects guns, what they represent, what they can allow one to accomplish...does not parade a gun around in public for any reason."

[yimmy]

4. Nothing.

He proved that an inanimate object is not a threat to anyone.

[lazer47]

5. bullshit!!!

[rd_kent]

47. Whats bullshit?

The fact that an inanimate object is not a threat?

[asdjrocky]

7. Bullshit.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. I have to disagree with you there. While I don't believe the guy committed a crime, i don't think

he proved that's guns are a threat to no one. In fact, i don't think that can be proved one way or another.

If someone shoots me with a gun, or even points one at me, i assure you I perceive that gun as a threat.

[DrDan]

17. ouch . . .

for how long does it remain "inanimate".

If he removes it from the holster and points it at the President with his finger on the trigger . . . is it still inanimate?

[Treo]

44. I think it depends

My gun is pointing in a generally eastern direction as I type this. It could be said to be pointing at the President. I am however, 1500+ plus miles from DC is there a legitimate threat?
Mr. Kostric was several hundred Meters from the President W/ a hand gun, was there a legitimate threat?
2 years ago the Presidential motorcade drove right past my college I was in the parking lot much closer to Bush than Mr. Kostric was to Obama, was there a legitimate threat?

[napi21]

8. If you;'re talking about the guy who was packing his gun, I think

the cops & SS did exactly as they should have. His complaint was that his oountry losing it;s freedoms, and if you don't use them, you'll lse them all. Thre cops did speak to him and keep their eye on him to make surethere would be no problems. What he did was legal...although I can't imagine anyone doing so except to sho people he could.

In case you didin't notice it, the only people who were flippin' out about the gun were the TV media.

[John Q. Citizen]

20. I haven't seen the event itself but I've read about it. I would readily believe that it

was the TV media who were freaking out.

[babylonsister]

10. You're defending THIS guy??

Have at it, but I never will.


Who was that gun-toting anti-Obama protester?
Joan Walsh

One of Tuesday's big mysteries was the motivation behind anti-Obama protester William Kostric, the man who brought a loaded gun to the town hall meeting and carried a sign referencing Thomas Jefferson's famous credo, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots."

On Tuesday afternoon MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked Kostric why he carried "a God-damned gun" to a meeting with the president, "given the violent history of this country with regard to presidents and assassinations," and whether he supported the Birther movement. Kostric insisted his intentions were peaceful, and that he's not affiliated with Birther groups.

But at least one of those statements doesn't seem to be true. A right-wing activist named "William Kostric," who's left a lot of footprints around the Web, is listed as a "team member" of the Arizona chapter of We the People, the far-right group best known for joining a lawsuit challenging Obama's right to be president based on his not being a U.S. citizen. Kostric told MSNBC he recently moved from Arizona to New Hampshire. (Kostric did not reply to Salon's e-mail request for an interview.)

And on his MySpace page (h/t Lavender Newswire), Kostric also lists as one of his heroes Robert Schultz, the anti-tax activist and We the People founder who spent a ton of his own money on ads promoting the Birther movement. At a press conference in December, Schultz told reporters: "This nation is headed towards a vortex of a Constitutional crisis. While on the one hand, the Obama citizenship issue is so simple a schoolchild could grasp it, if left festering and unanswered, it possesses the potential to send our nation into a time of great peril."

more...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6280921

[John Q. Citizen]

22. I'm defending his right of free expression and I'm defending the bill of rights in the constitution.

I don't own a gun, I've never owned a gun. Last time I fired a gun was a loaned shot gun at the Sportsmen for Obama event in Missoula last year, and before that probably 10 years.

I believe in the constitution. I believe in the rule of law.

if you don't, that's OK. I will defend your right to express that you don't believe in the rule of law and that you don't believe in the constitution.

That doesn't mean I'm defending your beliefs though. That means I'm defending our constitution.

I find your disregard for the rule of law and the constitution quite troubling. But i don't advocate arresting you for your bizarre beliefs as long as you aren't breaking any laws to promote them.

[babylonsister]

23. So sad you're troubled about me. But this guy sure sounds like

he's stalking this president.

That I find troubling.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. If he is that's against the law and action will be taken I would assume. But if he isn't, it

isn't against the law, and no action will be taken I assume.

You know, I disagree with Obama that the 2nd Amendment is a personal right. I think the "well regulated milita' means what it says. Obama and this current Supreme court disagree with me, so I guess I lose if and until that's overturned. That doesn't mean that I think that people should be banned from owning a personal rifle or gun necessarily, but that I believe the federal constitutional protection doesn't extend to the personal.

What is your opinion on the federal personal right to own a gun. Do you agree with Obama or do you disagree with Obama?

[babylonsister]

31. I have no problem with 'responsible' people owning guns.

I have no idea what this guy was trying to prove yesterday by having a gun in plain sight.

I am concerned about when and why he 'moved' from AZ to CT and 'happened' to be at the town hall.

You know there are nuts out there and I'm not convinced he's not one of them.


"Militia groups growing at pace not seen in a decade."

That's the current headline up on m$nbc. That to me is also troubling.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. That's not what I asked in terms of the Supreme Court decision. I asked if you agree with this

Supreme Court that personal individual gun ownership is protected by the federal constitution?

That is different than asking if you think responsible people should be able to own a gun. See I'm not convinced that responsible people should be able to own a gun, anywhere any time. For one thing, responsible is subjective. It doesn't say "responsible" in the constitution either. That's something you made up to avoid answering my question. That's alright if you prefer to remain hidden about your opinion. but it would be far more intellectually honest just to say that you don't care to share that opinion.

I too am concerned with the recent increased activity of violent rhetoric among the right wing.

I believe greater vigilance and law enforcement is needed, yet I don't advocate suspension of constitutional (or state and local ) legal rights to accomplish that.

[PavePusher]

41. The guy shows up at ONE event...

And you equate that to stalking? Really?

I can't even verbalise how stupid that sounds.

[rd_kent]

48. If we don't defend constitutional rights for those we disagree with

who will defend us when our rights are being infringed? Just because he is a right winger does not mean he should not have our support when constitutional rights are exercised, right?

[dtotire]

11. Who is William Kostric?

Check out daily kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/11/765317/-Who-is-William-Kostric

[Djinn]

49. who cares who he is

he did nothing illegal, his reprehensible views and beliefs are of absolutely no import. I'm sure many of your fellow citizens think there are things YOU do that are reprehensible (even if it's just Fred Phelps) but that doesn't mean the law should look your way either.

If you don't defend the rights of those who make your skin crawl then you don't actually defend anyone.

[dogtag]

19. Everything about this guy

screams mass murderer. He's just running around looking for the right location.

[zipplewrath]

24. Oh, I dunno

So far what he enjoys mostly is being provocative, and attracting attention to himself. The world is full of those guys. I remember back in the "Michigan Militia" days an FBI guy saying that he didn't find one of these guys who was interested in anything more than drinking beer and running around in the woods with guns. They all talked big, but when it came time to actually do some real training or work, they always had something else they "had" to do.

The problem of course is that one day Timothy McVeigh walks in.....

The guy that scares me more is the one sitting in the corner NOT being provocative, but hanging around the rest of them.

[PavePusher]

42. Welcome to the Bureau of Pre-Crime.

You may be under arrest for something you haven't done yet...

1984 much?

[aaronbav]

28. I'm curious HOW LONG it would take for the DALLAS Police

to arrest someone standing outside Smirks Preston Woods home in Dallas with both, a protest sign, and a legal sidearm (complete with a permit to carry).

Bet it WOULD NOT take long at all...

[John Q. Citizen]

30. So we either take away everyones constitutional rights, or we fight to protect everyones

constitutional rights, even the scumbags we disagree with.

[aaronbav]

32. Not talkin' 'bout takin' away anyones "right" to anything - merely

wondering how long it would take for the DOUBLE STANDARD to set in, and for the BUSH Protester to be arrested...

[John Q. Citizen]

36. probably not long. Ever talk to people who went to the Seattle Demonstrations or the Repo convention

last year?

That's why I think it's important to fight for everyone's rights.

If anyone is being oppressed we all are. If anyone is denied their rights, we are all at risk.

[X_Digger]

37. Since Texas doesn't have open carry.. not long. n/t

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.