Noble Not Guilty Of Disrupting Public Gathering(Brought Gun Near to Obama Rally

[RamboLiberal]

Source: KDKA TV

Hours after asking a judge to send them home because they were "frazzled," a Beaver County jury found John Noble not guilty of disrupting a public gathering when he brought a gun to a campaign rally for President Barack Obama.

The judge also found Noble not guilty of disorderly conduct.

Noble was accused of causing a disturbance by bringing a gun to the rally in Beaver County last year.

Though he had proper permits to carry the firearm, a trooper arrested him for disrupting a public gathering.

During the trial, Noble testified that he wanted to educate people about the right to carry firearms after Obama characterized Pennsylvanians as clinging to guns and religion.

Read more: http://kdka.com/beaver/John.Noble.Gun.2.1089780.html

[AlinPA]

1. Precedent for carrying guns to campaign rallies? Not all will be as stable as

Noble.

[watrwefitinfor]

45. Precedence isn't established in a trial court.

But why wasn't he simply denied access to the gathering, since he had a gun on him? This was when Obama was a presidential candidate, no?

Wat

[AlinPA]

46. Yes, it was a campaign event.

[X_Digger]

47. Maybe a local could chime in....

some reports say that he was standing across the street from the event, one other report says that he was inside the secure perimeter. We know he was outside the metal detectors obviously, and one report says that the secret service knew of Noble but had no problem with his actions.

[X_Digger]

2. Good for him!

Arbitrary restrictions on rights, whether 'free speech zones' or 'you can't carry a gun here not because it's illegal but because we say so'- should always be challenged.

[rfranklin]

3. yeah, that's the ticket, let freepers carry guns around Obamal...

"Ooops, it went off by accident!"

[X_Digger]

5. Right, restricting rights without legal justification..

.. is soo progressive.

[rfranklin]

9. I own a Ruger SR9 and I feel no need to take it to rallies...

If you and this other fellow feel you have to carry 24/7, I think you are seriously unbalanced.

[X_Digger]

10. I think you're missing my point..

.. if PA had passed a law saying 'no guns within 1000ft of a political rally' then I wouldn't be cheering this decision. I'd tell the guy "dumbass, you broke the law, deal with the consequences." But to tell the guy "I'm going to charge you with disorderly conduct for standing here doing nothing other than making some guy nervous as you hand out literature."- that chaps my ass.

[paulsby]

53. ah,. the "need canard"

one of the holy trio of anti-gunners. nobody said he NEEDED to do it, nor does one have to establish a NEED to exercise a constitutional right. it's a ridiculous metric. i don't NEED to carry. i CHOOSE to carry (sometimes) as is my constitutional right (especially under WA state constitution).

[primavera]

87. Ah, right, because anything that isn't actually illegal is good

One of the holy triumvirate of the libertarian crowd. If I want to drive around a tank that belches out more emissions than a refinery, endangers the lives of other motorists, and sucks down the last few drops of nonrenewable fuel, hey, that's my RIGHT because it's not illegal, I'm an Amurikan, and being inconsiderate, selfish assholes with no sense of responsibility whatsoever is what we do best!

[eqfan592]

105. Wow....

what a shockingly ignorant thing to say in response to that post. Do you view everything in the world as black and white? Only in extremes? Cuz if you do, then you have very serious issues.

[primavera]

130. What a coincidence!

I was just thinking how your post reflected a shockingly ignorant response to my post! So why don't we spare our fellow DUers the usual exchange of empty, meaningless, kindergarten name calling and agree that we're unlikely to impress each other with our respective points of view?

[iverglas]

122. and the corollary:

If you have a right to do it, nobody is entitled to criticize you for doing it.

[primavera]

128. How do you figure?

It's not illegal for me to smoke a cigar and blow its smoke in your face either; I have a "right" to do it, as you are so fond of saying. Does that make my conduct above reproach?

[iverglas]

133. well, I don't

You'll see that what I offered was a corollary for what you said:

Ah, right, because anything that isn't actually illegal is good

I didn't figure that you actually figured that, either.

It's not illegal for me to smoke a cigar and blow its smoke in your face either

Actually, where I'm at, it could very easily be charged as an assult.

I have a "right" to do it, as you are so fond of saying.

I'm what now?

Does that make my conduct above reproach?

I appear to have confused you. My regrets.


edit: reading my other posts in this thread, starting with post 41,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=239114&mesg_id=239179
would probably help.

[primavera]

136. sorry, iverglas

Posting at 2 am my time, and evidently a little slow on the uptake. Have a good one!

[pipoman]

129. Criticize? who the fuck is talking about criticizing

the guy was ARRESTED and CHARGED with a bogus crime in an attempt to suppress his rights. Criticize away, fuck, advocate for a new law or repeal of an old one, nobody gives a shit. This issue has not one shit to do with criticizing anyone.

[iverglas]

134. who the fuck was talking to you?

I was replying to a post in this subthread.

If you like, you could try to follow it.

[pipoman]

135. It didn't appear anyone in this subthread was talking to you

when you came in and spewed your silliness. You want private conversation? There is always PM.

[SteveM]

140. Wow, what a flatulence-ripping scree...

I don't know about the "holy triumvirate of the libertarian crowd," but you seem to be expert on it. And I don't know if anyone favors your tank/refinery analogy or thinks it is "good," but if you find some "libertarians" who believe "anything that isn't actually illegal is good," let us know and we can examine his/her entrails.

[Hoopla Phil]

111. The guy was arrested and prosecuted for NOT breaking a law.

The police overstepped their authority and used a trumped up B.S. charge to justify it. Next step for this guy is civil court. I applaud him for standing up for his rights.

[Doctor_J]

4. i wonder if he'd waved his gun around, not pointing it at anyone,

if he'd have gotten off. Or what if he'd fired a shot well over the president's head, not hitting anything? He could claim that he's demonstrating how most gun owners are marksmen and not really dangerous.

Certainly if carrying the gun is legal, discharging it and hurting no one must also be legal - no?

at what point are the gun-wielders actually breaking the law?

[X_Digger]

6. The first case would be 'brandishing' (a crime)..

.. the second would be 'reckless endangerment', 'discharge of a firearm within city limits', 'illegal discharge of a weapon'.. (different states have different crimes / terms for the action.)

[slackmaster]

8. Certainly not

He would have been charged and convicted of illegal brandishing, assuming the Secret Service didn't gun him down like a stray dog.

[paulsby]

63. and on that note, interesting pop quiz...

how many times have secret service agents fired their weapons during presidential protection duties? answer: zero. they have jumped in front of bullets though! brave guys. i've worked with them many times.

[paulsby]

54. absurd illogic

i am a cop in WA state. WA state has open carry. it is illegal to use a firearm in a manner likely to cause affront or alarm to a reasonable person. case law state UNUEQUIVOCALLY that carrying a firearm in a HOLSTER is NEVER a cause for a reasonable person to be alarmed and it is a constitutional right.

[Katya Mullethov]

92. But it still totally freaks some people out

As freaked out as the term was originaly intended back when Owsley Acid was still around .
I would put it down as a little bit projection (re: penis subthreads ) and in large part ignorance , which creates fear , which is something the left has accused the right as using as a marketing tool . So here we are back to projection again . Getting dizzy yet ?

[Statistical]

98. Strawman (strawmen?). Brandishing is a crime. Dicharge of a firearm inside city limits is a crime.

Had he done either or both of those he should have been charged with a crime.

If the state passes a law saying no guns within 1000 ft of a political event and he does it he should be charged with a crime.

The state had no laws on the books regarding lawful carry near but not inside a political event.

You can't (shouldn't) be arrested for a non-crime.
If you don't want people to do this then make it a crime via the legislature don't arrest people for not breaking the lsw.

[slackmaster]

7. I thought this was going to be about a knight or a prince or something

But we don't have those in this country.

I forgot.

[sharesunited]

11. Why are permits applied for and issued to carry a firearm?

If solely in connection with a security or investigative occupation, then how would the permit holder justify being at a rally instead of at his job? Can a paid NRA protester be issued a permit to carry a gun to a political rally on the basis of his occupation?

What logical variations are there to account for society tolerating anyone walking around literally anywhere carrying a gun?

Something seems a little loosey goosey screwy louie in the permitting process.

[X_Digger]

12. "If solely in connection with a security or investigative occupation"

They're not.. at least not in the 41 'shall issue' states. PA is one of those, not in the 9 'may issue' states where you have to be rich, politically connected, or famous for the most part.

Actually, I forgot- PA has 'open carry' so he didn't even have to have a permit to carry on his hip. (A permit is required to open carry in Philadelphia and in your car statewide.)

[sharesunited]

13. Very interesting!

So issued based on the applicant's whim only.

Very unsound. This must be stopped!

[X_Digger]

14. No, the government doesn't get to discriminate in 41 states..

.. if you pass a background check, get fingerprinted, pass a class on the laws (in most states), pass a live fire test (in many states).. the government doesn't get to deny you a permit. Historically the permit process was used to make sure that 'those kinds of people' don't get access to guns.

"Must be stopped"?? Maybe you're new to the issue, but the rise of 'CHL/CCW' is going in the opposite direction. Starting in 1961 in WA state, then 1987 in FL, and the majority of states in the next two decades.. There are only two states that don't have _some_ kind of concealed carry statute (you happen to live in one of the two.)

[sharesunited]

16. Thank goodness my state has the good sense to say No Way Fools!

OMG what an insane country, though. Look at all the jackass Shall Issue states. Time for some federal preemption on the matter.

[X_Digger]

17. You have fun tilting at that windmill..

You're not on the winning team on this issue- public opinion puts you in the minority.

[sharesunited]

20. I do believe that the promotion of gun proliferation has made people feel less safe

and that their self-defeating kneejerk reaction is to favor more guns.

So the NRA uses fear caused by the deadly results of its own previous success to continue to push us into a nation of shooters all trying to get the drop on each other.

Time to turn that bus around!

[slackmaster]

23. There is no right to feel any particular way

You have choices about how you feel, and that is not anyone else's problem.

[primavera]

89. Sure there is, it's a free country

He can feel anyway he pleases. And he has every right to lobby his representatives, participate in institutions of civil society, donate monies and volunteer time to organizations which share his concerns, engage in protests and demonstrations which support his position, and so on and so on. And if he can convince enough other people to agree with him, he can get the law changed. It's called democracy. This is what it looks like.

[eqfan592]

106. Yet there is a certain level of irony...

...in speaking about this being a "free country" when referring to somebody who would like to dramatically diminish our civil liberties.

[primavera]

132. Only because you have a very black and white understanding of freedom

You guys are so into brandishing the term freedom as if it somehow meant something. In response to any criticism, all you have to do is whip it out and wave it like a banner and chant "Freedom! Freedom!" as if that's all that needed to be said on the subject. It's like George Bush and his vacuous wave the flag gibberish - if you disagree with anything I believe in, you're unpatriotic and you hate America. Well, it's not convincing when George Bush says it; it's no more convincing when you say it. Freedom means different things to different people, that doesn't mean that your definition is the only valid one. The freedom to go out and murder people, for instance, is not a freedom you have, and it's quite a good thing that you don't have it. Freedom to rape people, if that was a freedom you enjoyed, would likewise not be a commendable thing. You do not have the freedom to drink and drive, to evade paying taxes, to commit fraud, etc., etc.. There are a very great many "freedoms" which you do not have. The vast majority of the bazillion or so laws on the books in some way or another makes you a little less "free." And that is entirely as it should be. So this insistence that ownership of a gun is somehow synonymous with some sacred notion of freedom is a total crock. A very great many countries on the planet, most of which are more socially developed and culturally enlightened than we are, restrict gun ownership, yet they are very far indeed from being nations of slaves.

It is certainly true that the existing law in the United States at the moment allows you to have a gun, and you cannot be reproached for breaking a law simply by owning one. It is also undeniably true that five right-wing Supreme Court justices believe that the Constitution supports your ownership of guns. That is therefore, beyond dispute, the law of this land. It is also a law of this land that corporations which fire US workers and move their operations offshore are entitled to tax credits for doing so. Not every law is perfect or beyond critical regard. So responding to any criticism of gun policies by mindlessly crying "Freedom!" is really kind of, well... stupid.

[eqfan592]

139. Ya know what's funny...

...is that your entire post is about me "chanting" the word "Freedom" without anything to back it up. Yet in the post you replied to, the word "freedom" is never actually used. I did say the word "free" but that was a quote from you.

Anyway, none of what you said applies to the post I placed on the board. I did not blindly "chant" anything. And as for my point that the person in question DOES want to greatly limit our civil liberties, this is in fact the truth, even by your definition.

What's also funny is that I agree with a good deal of what you say. We do indeed accept many common sense limitations when it comes to our "freedoms." The entire argument is if gun control actually makes any sense, which is the primary point of contention. And I don't believe anybody is claiming that citizens of another nations with strict gun control laws are somehow "slaves." But your implication seems to be that because you feel they are "socially" more well developed than we are (a sentiment I don't entirely disagree with) they must inherently be correct on this issue. I would ask what the violent crime rate was in those nations before and after these bans, and if the situations where firearms were used to commit crimes outnumbered the situations where firearms were used in self defense.

But one thing that can't be argued is the fact that those people did give up their final "check & and balance" to their government.

Ultimately, the biggest argument for me against gun control is that the issue is divisive and costs us more in the long run than any gains we might make, speaking both politically and as a people in general. The real issues behind crime are NOT guns, they are poverty, urban decay, education, and many other issues. This are the issues we should be putting our energy toward. Gun control, on a whole, fails to address these far more important issues, and in fact encourages people to ignore them.

But then again, what do I know, I'm not as "socially developed" as many other nations, so I can't possibly be right about anything compared to what they think. How's that for "black and white" thinking?

[24601]

72. How anyone feels about another's rights is relevant because?

Or, maybe forcing polioce to Mirandize suspects makes others feel less safe....

Perhaps someone's speech that makes me uncomfortable should be regulated, n'est pas?

[primavera]

88. And were you as respectful of public opinion majorities in the past...

... when the majority favored more restrictive control control laws? Or when it shifts again in the future? By your own graphs, public opinion is a fickle thing. Over the span of decades, the NRA has spent billions in lobbying and strategic communications, i.e., the polite word for propaganda. I'd be more surprised if all of that sustained investment and energy hadn't impacted public opinion polls at all. But that doesn't mean that public opinion will always be the same from here on out. So let's not pretend that there's a "winning team" here, just another shift of the eternally swinging pendulum. Debates such as these have been going on for centuries, if not millenia, I doubt very seriously that either side of the issue will suddenly prevail so thoroughly as to lay the issue to rest once and for all.

[X_Digger]

93. Probably not, but I'll likely be worm food. n/t

[rd_kent]

28. Really?

Insane country? Allowing the free exercise of the 2nd amendment makes a state "jackass"? Im glad you are not in charge.

[lumpy]

31. Unstable people will consider this an opportunity to display

their guns in any venue. Considering display of guns, perhaps ground rules should be established in private and public arenas on a local level. Knowing that it is permissible to carry a gun, say at any public function, is bound to cause disruption as has been proved in this particular case. I can see more trouble on the horizon if some boundries are not set.

[Pavulon]

32. I guess you have never carried a ccw..

there are many places you can not carry. Places posted are one, restaurants are another. The regulations are there. If he lived in an open carry state and did no harm, why change the law?

[lumpy]

37. I have no idea what a ccw might be.

Who is to say that a state allowing a person to carry a gun, to say, a political rally, graduation ceremonies, ballgame etc. that it is guaranteed that that person is responsible or, at worst, not unstable.
I get your point that if posted, carrying a gun is restricted. Obviously the Obama rally was not prepared to restrict carrying a gun at the event. I happen to believe that there should be more defined restrictions on where a gun can be carried.

[Pavulon]

40. Concealed Carry Weapon

there are many restrictions on who and where you can carry a weapon. Probably depends on the state. In NC that would not be allowed open or concealed because of state law.

[RamboLiberal]

44. People with guns wouldn't get in to the venue

At least with a president/VP or presidential candidate. You have to go through metal detectors. This guy was across the street from venue. I'm from area so I followed the case last couple of days. Secret Service was notified of this guy but said they actually had no problem with him. It was the locals who got their shorts in a twist.

Now I'm not advocating open carry near political rallies. IMHO this guy was a RW idiot. But he was within his rights.

[PavePusher]

95. Why not?

"Now I'm not advocating open carry near political rallies. IMHO this guy was a RW idiot. But he was within his rights."

My question would be "What is this political candidate/person/agency doing so wrong that he/she/it must be in fear of private citizens engaging in lawful, unthreatening, Constitutionaly protected behavior?".

If my rights are limited by my physical proximity to a political figure, well, we have an issue, and the problem isn't ME.

[nonsequitur]

48. thank goodness mine does. federal preemption? no way

if we want to lose seats in 2010 or lose it all in 2012 let the federal government try to screw with state gun laws. political suicide.

[slackmaster]

15. Shall-issue laws have been around for 25 years and have yet to cause any measurable harm

What rational basis can you offer for stopping it?

[sharesunited]

18. I come from the position that no compelling reason supports allowing it.

Gun proliferation is a bad enough problem without state sanctioned carry. What kind of message does that send? That we are a nation of gun toting numbskulls completely manipulated by the NRA?

[slackmaster]

19. That is not how our system of laws works

Everything is allowed except that which has been proscribed by due process. The discretionary- or non-issue systems that have been replaced by shall-issue were inherently discriminatory and failed to meet the needs of citizens who decided they needed to carry weapons for self-defense.

[sharesunited]

21. Citizens who decide they need morphine?

What are they told?

[slackmaster]

22. Morphine is regulated

The ommerce and dispensing of morphine have been regulated by due process.

[sharesunited]

24. How was this possible?

A lightbulb went off in the body politic and the public got angry enough to get it done.

It must be the same with guns and ammo. The only question is how many rampage killings will need to occur?

[X_Digger]

26. Yet murder is down, assaults are down, rape is down..

.. good luck trying to convince people.

[lumpy]

38. Are you serious ?

x

[X_Digger]

43. Yup, preliminary 2008 data backs it up..

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/08aprelim/index.html

The October report should give more details, but all crime is down from 2007 levels, and have been trending down since their peak in the late 80's / early 90's.

[Statistical]

99. Are you?

It is well documented that violent crime, burglary, and homicides are on a 20 year decline.

The FBI makes the stats available.

[SteveM]

141. Gun-controllers (esp. in MSM) use the mantra: More guns=more crimes...

But since the mid-90s and through to the present, violent crime has gone down significantly. Yet, during this same time, the number of guns in civilian hands has risen by 100,000,000. This MAY be a reason why there are increasing reports of armed resistance to robbers, home invaders, stick-up thugs, etc. The crime rates may still be fairly low by historical standards, but it sounds like more crime is happening because citizens are pushing back.

[slackmaster]

27. Guns are regulated too

They have been since 1934. Controls got much more comprehensive in 1968, and have been strengthened since then.

What, exactly, are you proposing?

[rd_kent]

29. Rampage killings are NOT the problem

illegal use of guns is the problem. Taking away the LEGAL right of citizens to own a gun will NOT solve "rampage killings" or any other kind of illegal use of a gun.

[paulsby]

55. there is no right to use drugs of any sort in the constitution

thus, it is much easier to regulate and/or ban than firearms. it requires LESS burden requirements and less due process essentially. some would argue that the same privacy rights that protect choice (note that privacy is not mentioned in the constitution, but is a derived right. ) should also protect choice
to use drugs, especially drugs like mj that have no LD50 and are not addictive. but that's still a unaccepted theory.

[Katya Mullethov]

131. A ligthbulb went off in the body politic California

And it was seen as a good way to roust the Chinese that were no longer needed to swing hammers and set dynamite charges for the railroad . Much the same as weapon bans . No ...EXACTLY like weapons laws intended to keep the uppity negro in his place .

[primavera]

90. Very true, but maybe that's not such a great thing

I'm thinking a lot about this at the moment as I'm presently in Europe, spending the summer studying comparative law at the University of Vienna and you're absolutely right that a defining characteristic of our legal system is the presumption that anything that isn't illegal is something to which we are entitled as a right. Our legal system says almost nothing about responsibilities or duties - every man is an island, entire unto itself, and is consequently free to act virtually without regard for anyone else. That is not how much of the rest of the world views matters. Much of the rest of the world looks more to privileges, which may be earned, but are not necessarily automatically imparted. Are those countries less "free"? Maybe. Is it necessarily a bad thing if they are? I dunno. We're getting firmly into the territory of philosophy now, but it's definitely an interesting question and one which shapes our lives to a greater extent, both for better and for worse, than we generally appreciate on a day to day basis.

[nonsequitur]

49. i disagree

if i need to call a cop how long does it take them to get there? 5? 10? 15 minutes? too long. i have a ccw and i intend to keep it. if i have flat tire at night and my family is in the car i may not have that 5 10 15 minutes to wait. leave gun laws alone. it lost us the senate when Clinton was in, it's political suicide.

[paulsby]

56. and this cop

heartily agrees with you and supports CCW as do most REAL cops (ie line officers). cop-o-crats, as represented by IACP (iow management) generally doesn't because they are proxies for the politicians that appoint them. i work in a shall issue, open carry state. we have low crime in general btw, and low violent crime. in many years of law enforcement i have personally never had an incident where a person with a CCW misused their firearm.

[iverglas]

59. sadly

What kind of message does that send? That we are a nation of gun toting numbskulls completely manipulated by the NRA?

Yes.

;)

[Paladin]

25. Giving Aid And Comfort To Well-Armed Democrat-Haters Everywhere.

No way this whole trend is going to end well. When something genuinely tragic goes down, when the proliferation of guns in this country intersects with the proliferation of lunatic right-wingers in this country---as it most certainly will---and a Democratic official gets permanently "educated," you DU gun obsessives are going to bear part of the blame....

[rd_kent]

30. No, were not!

MOST gun owners follow the law and are not the cause of the ILLEGAL gun problem. By your logic, we should ban cars in case some nutjob wants to use it to run people over, huh?

[kpominville]

33. Bad logic

No, I wouldn't ban cars in that case, but I WOULD ban those people from driving.
In the same way I have no problem banning certain people with a history of mental problems or violence from having guns.

[rd_kent]

35. What people?

And how do you know what someone MIGHT do?

Welcome to DU, you are my 1000th post. Congratulations!

[SteveM]

142. Happy 1000! (nt)

[Paladin]

66. The Problem Here Is Gun Activists, Not Gun Owners

There are plenty of gun owners who have a severe problem with somebody turning up at a political function with a gun, a Bible and an obvious problem with Democrats; I happen to be one of those gun owners. Gun activists are a different matter---because of their single-issue focus, they feel compelled to defend, even express admiration for the individual involved, here. Very unhealthy.....

[eqfan592]

109. Wrong.

This guy broke no laws. You shouldn't arrest somebody who didn't break a law. What exactly should he have been found guilty of?? Lacking good sense? That's not breaking the law, unless that lack of sense leads you into an illicit activity.

If you don't want people carrying near rallies, then pass a law to ban it. Don't just arrest people because you think they look scary, for what ever reason. That's hardly a "progressive" thing to do.

[Hoopla Phil]

114. Well said. I agree 100%. n/t

[SteveM]

143. Gun Activists. Are these the new bad guys, now? Gosh a-mighty.

[lumpy]

34. I agree. There are plenty of people in this country who are

ready and willing to flaunt common sense in order to make a point. The results can only cause disorder, as has been proved. I am one who believes people have the right to own fire arms with defined restrictions. Cases where the results end up causing intimidation or serious concern should be controlled.

[paulsby]

67. civil rights protest often,

if not frequently, results in DISORDER. rosa parks was DISORDERLY. the WTO protests were disorderly (and criminal in many respects that i witnessed firsthand). often, when people advocate for rights that others don't respect, it creates DISORDER. so what?

[Paladin]

73. Well Said. (n/t)

[nonsequitur]

50. i've been a democrat my entire life & I've always owned a

firearm. what makes you think they have more than we do?

[eqfan592]

107. Are you a "speech obsessive" if you defend the 1st amendment?

You'd have to be using your logic.

And the 1st has lead to the deaths of many MANY people the last 8 years or so. It was used to manipulate the nation into a totally unjustifiable war with Iraq by the Republican party and their mouthpieces around the nation. It's been used to vilify programs that could help millions and save thousands of lives a year such as universal health care. It's been used to demonize political opponents left and right.

Freedom comes with a price tag, and that price tag involves living with both the good and bad aspects of civil liberties. Almost every single argument used against the 2a could be applied to any of the other amendments to some degree by simply pointing out those who abuse their liberties to do harm unto others.

It's time you "control obsessives" thought about that.

[TEXASYANKEE]

36. If you were at a political rally ...

... and you saw someone carrying a guy, what would you do?

[lumpy]

39. I would ask that someone if he needed any help carrying

that guy.

[nonsequitur]

51. lol

[slackmaster]

42. Depends

Are we talking a big guy? A normal sized guy? A midget?

Who is carrying him? A man or a woman?

Straight? Gay? Bi? Trans?

[Hoopla Phil]

115. That's not a complete picture. Is this strawman . . . .

carrying a rifle at port arms, a rifle slinged on their back, a pistol in hand, or a pistol in a holster?

I would react differently in HOW the firearm was being carried.

[iverglas]

41. yup, educate those masses

Let them see the face of things to come, when the right-wing squats on every public space in their land, and flaunts its power in their face, and they shall truly know that they are as nothing.

"God is good," Janet Noble said after her husband's acquittal.
"Our constitution stands."

They love him here:

http://gunservatively.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/in-support-of-john-noble/


Interesting:

http://www.wfmj.com/Global/story.asp?S=10736193&nav=menu491_2

John Noble says he wore his 9 mm semiautomatic handgun on a holster and carried a Bible to the suburban Pittsburgh rally to protest Obama's remark that Americans who feel left out by the system are clinging to guns and religion. ...

Police say 51-year-old Noble wanted to be disruptive. They say he posted on a Web site days before the rally he was taking the gun to "test what would happen." ...

Very "educational".

[paulsby]

57. no different from any other form of civil rights protest

except in this case, it's a LEGAL action he is using to make a point. no different than marching for a cause, carrying placards, having demonstration, etc. WA state open carry orgs have done very well with this method. they recently attended a large public event in kitsap county. kitsap has an unconstitutional unenforced ban on open carry at certain public locations. the open carry guys and gals went there and the cops didn't do anything cause they knew the open carry was legal. that's excellent grassroots activism

[iverglas]

58. yuppers

Just the same as the right-wing scum who hang around abortion clinics screeching and waving hokey pictures.

I have a right to jump off a bridge. I haven't felt an urge to do it yet.

The fact that one has a right to do something does not mean that one should do it, or that decent people would even think of doing it.

Oh, by the way. You say:

no different from any other form of civil rights protest

What the fuck was he "protesting"? The fact that it's legal for him to drag his spiffy little gun with him everywhere he goes?

:shrug:

[paulsby]

60. he was protesting

the all too prevalent anti-gun attitude, especially amongst those in positions of power. that attitude that doesn't respect people's right to carry. same attitude was later evidenced by the fact that he was ARRESTED for exercising his rights. hth . and yes, those that protest abortion are also well within their rights, and i applaud them for taking a stand, even if i disagree with their position. that's how it works in a free society.

[iverglas]

61. oh, wow

he was protesting
the all too prevalent anti-gun attitude

Excuse me, I have to go protest ... uh ... I dunno, but I'm sure I can think of some ignorant thing to do to "protest" somebody's perfectly fucking legitimate opinion on a matter of public policy ...

What you have actually said is:

He was engaging in bully-boy tactics to intimidate people who disagree with him on a matter of public policy.

Ta.

[paulsby]

62. only an anti-civil rights coward

would be intimidated by somebody who is openly carrying. i am sure many ninnies and cowards were intimidated by n30 protests, WTO protests, critical mass protests (bicycle rider rights in seattle) etc. so what? the protesters were there to speak their cause and loudly i might add. bully for them. those of us who advocate for civil rights don't have to limit our behaviors based on what cowardly ninnies think. there is nothing "bully-boy" about openly carrying, a right in many states.

[iverglas]

64. ah, you do the team proud.

[paulsby]

65. i openly carry every day. it's a requirement of my profession

my team protects people from bad guys. guns help us in that task. i also support the right of citizens to defend themselves. we are citizens, not subjects.

[Hoopla Phil]

116. "we are citizens, not subjects. " WELL SAID!!! And. . .

thank you for doing such a dangerous job and remembering us citizens. I'm an avid motorcycle rider (big twins) and often find myself with riding with law enforcement folks (Blue Knights). It is amazing how different the line officer mentality is from the "politicos".

Again, Thank you.

[Paladin]

74. Abandon All Hope On This One, Iverglas.

Trust me, I know whereof I speak.....

[iverglas]

100. but my hopes are never dashed!

They step up to the plate, and do what they do so well, with so little prompting. ;)

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. How was he intimidating anyone? Only people with irrational fears would be affected.

[paulsby]

52. excellent

as i said in the previous posts, arresting somebody for exercise of a civil right is just plain heinous. a victory for JUSTICE
!

[proteus_lives]

70. +1

:thumbsup:

[Hoopla Phil]

117. Round one was a win. I hope he wins round two in civil court too.

[lynne]

68. Carrying when you have the appropriate permits is not a criminal offense -

- and the verdict is just. Legally carrying is not disrupting a public gathering. I wonder if Noble would have a case against the arresting officer?

[proteus_lives]

69. While I wouldn't carry to a political rally...

The type of responses of shocked me. (as usual) I'm always saddened by the number of Americans (so-called liberals) and foreigners who want to take away our rights.

[DainBramaged]

71. Gun carry, the best excuse to deflect from the small penis syndrome

And blah blah blah, second amendment, criminals carry guns, I feel safe, everyone looks at me, blah blah blah.

All bullshit. Paranoid people whih serious problems.

[Tim01]

75. People afraid of guns are always talking about penis.

That didn't take long.

[DainBramaged]

77. People always talking about guns have no penis

that was pretty short.......

[Tim01]

79. You are still talking about others penises. nt

[DainBramaged]

80. Yeah, and what's wrong with penis, got a problem with that?

Those who have enjoy, those without, play with their guns. It appears, you have an aversion to the penis. But that's ok, that blue steel substitute is your best friend.

[Tim01]

81. Nobody comes to your penis threads and starts talking about guns.

I don't really find it comforting that other people talking about guns makes you think of penises.

Maybe you could start your own penis forum. Then you wouldn't have any need to bring your favorite subject into gun threads.

[DainBramaged]

82. Nice try, but the favorite subject of people talking about guns

is their manhood, which in reality, they sorely lack.

Goodbye. Your aversion to penis is troubling, but not unexpected being that you love teh gunns. The penis will not cause you any trouble, expecially when you lack one.


:rofl: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

121. Please post some links to gun owners talking about their manhood. You fail miserably.

[SteveM]

146. "favorite subject of people talking about guns." You prove it (nt)

[rrneck]

83. Heh!

Nobody comes to your penis threads and starts talking about guns

Well played sir.

:rofl:

[DainBramaged]

85. Don't you have something to polish?

:boring:

[rrneck]

86. Like what? nt

[eqfan592]

112. wow, so THIS is what being a progressive is about these days?

And for the record, you couldn't be projecting harder if you tried. :P

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

120. You are in the gungeon regularly talking about guns. So you don't a have penis? Sorry about that.

Unless of course you are a woman.

[SteveM]

145. You know what the biggest sex organ is, don't you?...

The brain.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. Another penis obsessed gun grabber.

[Hoopla Phil]

118. LOL You funny.

suggest you google Sigmund Freud and weapons. LMAO. . .

[paulsby]

138. the penis canard

another illogical anti-gunner rhetorical ploy. one of the three famous canards. i also like the penny psychology. i carry a gun, fire insurance, and a CPR mask. that doesn't make me paranoid. it makes me prepared for very unlikely but very important crises. fwiw, i have performed CPR once (off duty) in public. my house has never caught fire. i will retain my fire insurance for the very unlikely, but catastrophic possibility. i also have 3 months of food storage. that's just basic civic responsibility.

[SteveM]

144. "He who first smelt it, dealt it" -- Sigmund Freud

[Tim01]

76. I read the story and watched the video. He did nothing wrong.

He said he knew where the security perimeter was and stayed outside of it.

There were some people at that rally who now know there is nothing illegal about having a gun. And also a bunch of people who watched the news.Some of those people have learned something.

We have an old guy in town who open carries all the time. He is kind of a local fixture, everybody knows him. He has educated lots of people.

[Paladin]

84. If You Have To Display A Firearm To Educate People........

....you're not dealing in education. There are several ways to describe it, but education sure as hell isn't one of them.....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

103. So a police officer giving a public education class isn't educating anyone? Very strange idea.

[eqfan592]

113. well, unless of course you're educating them about firearms, in which case displaying a firearm...

...makes perfect sense. But of course, you are totally unable to imagine anybody actually wanting to learn about firearms.

[SteveM]

147. Good point. What controller "wants to learn about firearms"? Not here.

[iverglas]

124. hmmmmm

If You Have To Display A Firearm To Educate People........

I'll bet doin' it in the park would be an excellent way to educate people about the joys of sex!

[jody]

125. Good point, gun-grabbers are incapable of acknowledging that citizens have a right to keep and bear

arms for self-defense. They are simply un-educatable if they reject the following facts!

SCOTUS said

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

Obviously natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights or re-existing rights under our Constitution including those enumerated in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments are not granted by the Constitution nor do they depend upon that instrument for their existence.

Our Constitution does obligate government to protect all enumerated rights as well as unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth Amendment. That is a unique feature of our government because it protects a minority against the tyranny of a simple majority.

[paulsby]

137. it's education, the same way two men or two women kissing in public are

it offends many people,e scares some people, makes some people proud to live in america, etc. regardless, it's a way to celebrate something and educate others about our rights.

[TatonkaJames]

78. If you know about the book JFK and the Unspeakables then

you can see, since Obama was elected that he is being set up by the agencies we hear little of, like the ones that did in JFK and new ones coming to light lately that Cheney supervised. I fear for Obama's safety, I believe they are laying the groundwork with these little incidents for a bad outcome in a couple of years. Like Oswald, someone will need to be the patsy.

[PavePusher]

96. Wow.

Is your tin foil a little tight today?

And people call gun-owners "paranoid".

Sheesh.

[DainBramaged]

97. Gun owners ARE paranoid, and WE Democrats are SERIOUSLY concerned for the safety

of President Obama because of all the PARANOID gun nuts calling for his demise through the use of violence ( code words) the bullet box is a perfect example....

Just look on the Videos page, there's a fresh one there.

[jody]

126. Do you know that there are 84+ million gun-owners in an electorate of perhaps 210 million. Obama

recognized he couldn't become president without many of there votes and tried to recant his ant-gun history by telling voters, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

If Obama had taken your advice and followed his comment "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." with "p.s. I believe Gun owners ARE paranoid" he would still be a senator.

[SteveM]

148. "Gun owners ARE paranoid." All 80,000,000? Poor opinion of your fellows.

[dorkulon]

91. Why'd this get moved to the gungeon? The story qualifies as LBN, no?

I understand any gun thread will be heated, but the OP is news.

[X_Digger]

94. Ehn.. usually stays in LBN or GD..

.. until enough pro-RKBA posters come along to straighten out the lovejoys and pollyannas.

[Hoopla Phil]

119. That about sums it up. n/t

[SteveM]

149. Yep.

[jody]

127. Interesting question, it's obviously not a subtle form of censorship by banishing to one of

the most active "Topic Forums".

Probably not important, I'm just thankful Skinner lets pro-RKBA Democrats defend the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, a right that is not granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

I hope all who support RKBA including the majority of DUers, Democrats, and voters appreciate Skinner's efforts.

[RamboLiberal]

101. Comments from the Judge on this case

"In my lifetime, there have been a number of assassinations of presidents and presidential candidates. A number of presidents were shot at. I'm very cognizant of that," the judge said in a phone interview after yesterday's decision. "The defendant's actions were very foolish. But not all foolish actions are criminal acts."

"We're talking about heightened security," Judge Knafelc said. "The police did nothing wrong."

"The action by the Pennsylvania State Police and Beaver County prosecutor to bring criminal prosecution ... can only be described as an abortion of justice," the group OpenCarry.org said in a statement yesterday.

Some postings on the organization's Web site called for advocates to demonstrate solidarity with Mr. Noble by openly carrying guns in Downtown Pittsburgh during September's G-20 summit of world leaders.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09199/984795-57.stm#ixzz0LfkFN4Ux

[Hoopla Phil]

108. Great news! Too bad he had to go to trial over NOT breaking any laws.