I absolutely do agree with #3.   I'm still seething about that, in fact.

I'm not sure I'm following with your park analogy; if you've got a vicious dog, and you're not breaking any laws, and it's restrained, then why in the world shouldn't you take it for a walk through the park? How are you to know there's a picnic there, with obnoxious brats eating bacon?

Their behavior is their parents' problem, not yours.  In fact, their behavior of taunting infringes on your right to walk your dog.  Then again, if you're one of those twits that just dig having a vicious dog to make up for your perceived deficiencies in the endowment department, and the critter breaks loose and mauls the lot of the little rugrats to death; you're to blame.  

Which, really, seems to lead into the rest of what you said; the guy was within his rights, but, what if someone had grabbed that gun?  At that point, he's part of whatever they do, because he's lost control, just like with your dog and the park.

(Is it wrong of me to want all the folks who bailed out banks to be doused in bacon grease, and tied to some trees in parks, and have a nice little Sin City scene re-enactment? My therapist says it's perfectly normal, but, there's fear in his eyes... why would he be afraid of ME? *nibbles on a piece of bacon*)

Certainly, people can be mad, and I like the 'negligence' bent; I hadn't thought of that.  Another good example of that sort of thing is to sit at a peewee baseball game with a cooler full of beer. Sure, as an adult, you're allowed to drink, but... not exactly a wise decision...

Unfortunately, the issue that seems to be really focused upon is that it was a gun. Some people have a lot of problems with folks possessing fire arms, and are using this incident to push that agenda.  Going that way, and I still think it's both a 2nd _and_ 1st amendment issue.

If we were instead focusing on the fact that it's okay to protest policy creatively, but using a weapon to do so, while legal, is negligent and perhaps just a pinch idiotic, then we're having a conversation. :-)

I wonder if Cenk's backed up a little bit and thought about it a little more.  I realize that when you feel that someone you very much admire and respect is being threatened, it's certainly cause for anger and fear. However, (and I must admit, I really should go hunt for some interview with the guy, considering the time I've spent defending 'him' (honestly, fan of the constitution, not of people. :-) ) ) from the clip I saw, the guy wasn't being menacing. He was standing there, with a sign; a sign with a message dervied from a quote by one of our founding fathers.  

That's a far cry better than some of the mindless profanity being spewed by both `sides` in modern debates, I think.

I'm surprised the conspiracy folks haven't jumped on this yet as being a big liberal master plan to crack down on gun owners.  Maybe the guy wasn't taken by the secret service because he was a plant...  *make scary ghost sounds* 

Fine; I'll come clean - the guy actually works on Bruno's security detail, and the whole thing's going to be in the next movie.  You heard it here, first... 

The essence of freedom is proper limitation of government.