Sometimes you have to deal with nutjobs.

Just in case it got lost in my inability to be concise, I'm not advocating letting people INTO town hall meetings with guns; it's just my understanding that the guy that had one was outside the meeting, on private property.

If many people start showing up with guns OUTSIDE the meetings, and it becomes a problem, then there'll likely be a law passed that specifies the distance that needs to be kept at rallies and the like.  If that's challenged, then the Supreme Court can elect to decide if its constitutional or not.

I realize I'm terribly over simplifying here, but I'm not sure I see the problem.  Many folks seem to be saying, "Well, if it were Bush..." and as I said in my previous post... Who cares? It's like saying, "Well, if you were in North Korea...", which I admit to being guilty of myself.  It doesn't matter. We're not, thankfully. (Directed, of course, at my fellow Americans. If you ARE reading this in North Korea, be sure to thank the dedicated souls maintaining Tor and Freenet.)

This really is a simple issue.  Was the guy breaking any laws? If yes, then he should be dealt with accordingly. If he wasn't, and we're talking about this because it seems ludicrous to some there isn't a law against it, then the question is, "Should there be a law against someone having a gun in such close proximity to the President?"  If the answer's yes, then such a law should get written and voted upon. If no, then, we're back to, "The guy didn't do anything wrong."

I'll freely admit that my political viewpoint often fails; not because it's wrong, but because people tend to be idiots.  You can see on the youtube channel for this video how people break down to shouting vulgarities louder than each other, instead of even attempting to listen to anyone else's point of view.  Idiocity tends to bring down everyone's party, and usually, it's that small, very very vocal minority.

With Libertarians, the assumption is that people understand that common sense has a part in things.  As long as you don't infringe on me, I won't infringe on you. (Do what you want, I'll do what I want, and we'll not prevent each other from doing so.)  However, just because, for example, I _can_ carry a gun, doesn't mean I _should_.  

I think people are confusing this issue; I truly believe that the guy was well within his rights. I think debate's a good idea, and I think that he was stating his position, albeit in a not as often seen way, these days. 

I didn't say I thought he went about it wisely.  If more people do this, then I think we'll need to have a discussion about just what IS acceptable in a public venue.

(I want to clarify: I don't tout a gun around; I think most people who do are cowards, and really very scared of the world, and having 'a piece' on their hip is a way of getting instant self esteem.  I don't believe it's the case HERE, though. That guy was making a political statement. That's actually a pretty good reason for having a gun. Another good reason is to protect your loved ones, in your own home.  The reason folks no longer NEED to be armed when they, for instance, go shopping, is because our society's as safe as it is.  Other countries? Not so much so...)

Summary:

1. Let's worry about 2, 3, [fibonacci set] when it happens. Until then, let's talk about what actually did happen.

2. The guy did, or didn't break the law. 

3. If he did, arrest him.

4. If he didn't, decide whether there should be a law against what he did, or not.

5. If there should be a law, ... start writing your duly elected representatives.

6. If there shouldn't, then celebrate the fact that we even got to see this; if this were Bush, the guy would have been arrested, and the media prevented from evening noting it'd occured.

7. Enjoy the delicious irony of the hypocrisy of me saying 6, after berating everyone else for pulling that same thing. :-)

The essence of freedom is proper limitation of government.

I guess where I'm falling here is on the side of defending to the death the right of someone to say something which I disagree with, and that the guy with the gun was 'saying' just that.

As a tangent, (watching Bill Mahr always does this to me...)  why hasn't anyone seen a bunch of nutjobs showing up with guns as a solution to replenishing our depleting military reserves? I've heard recruitment's down... ;-)

That'd answer the question of "What do we do if a lot of folks show up with guns."  Give them an opportunity to really show their patriotic spirit.

Calling Jefferson a terrorist; harsh, man.  Not saying it's not true, but, harsh. 

The essence of freedom is proper limitation of government.

I think we're having two different conversations.

What Bush would do is completely irrelevant, because Obama is different (and, many feel, `better`, as a human being) than Bush.

We're not talking about the mess the country's in, at least, I didn't think we were.  We're talking about a guy, with a gun, in the vicinity of the President. 

Bush, almost certainly, would have flipped, and the guy would have a nice time being tortured in a rather funky dungeon, without due process.  It would quite suck for him, unless he was into that sort of thing. (I'm picturing those cartoons of Cheney, in leather, at Cagle's political cartoon index, and I think I just puked in my mouth, a little.) 

So, yes, Bush is completely irrelevant. Thankfully, we don't have to care what he'd do, because he's (and, I truly do thank whatever deity/deities may or may not exist for this) no longer president, and no longer in charge.

Now, if we were talking about WHY people are so angry, and why things aren't so good in this great nation of ours at the moment, then Bush becomes quite relevant, as do folks like Madoff.   

The essence of freedom is proper limitation of government.