Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Paul Helmke, Wrong Again

I love this. In a wire-service story about the growing trend of peacefully carrying weapons at political events, Brady Spokeswhiner Paul Helmke said that people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening," he added.

Followed immediately by this paragraph:

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president. [Emphasis mine]


Oops, Paul. Try again!

11 comments:

Vinnie said...

Im afraid I would bother the secret service. I would stand next to the nearest agent and ask him how much he trusts that sniper pointing his rifle at US.

Larry said...

I was reduced to an empty holster at my Town Hall last night.

Mad Saint Jack said...

I always assumed that the secret service would follow me around even if I was totally unarmed. One of the downfalls of looking like an ax murderer.

mikeb302000 said...

I don't think Paul was wrong at all in what he said. The fact that the official statement from the Secret Service is that they've got everything under control certainly doesn't indicate anything of the sort. What would you expect them to say?

If their job is to keep an eye on the crowd wouldn't it make their job harder with more people carrying openly?

Are you too close-minded to see this, Roberta?

Roberta X said...

When the Secret Service directly contradicts what you and Paul-the-panicker say, why yes. Yes I am.

The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right and my mind is just as closed about it as it is about the right to free speech or freedom of conscience in religious matters.

How about you, Mike? Are you too "close-minded" about firearms to understand that honest men and women peaceably carrying guns is a quintessentially American act, or did it fret you too much to see an African-American man with a slung AR-15 and a handgun on his hip?

Tam said...

mikeb302000,

"I don't think..."

We may safely disregard all your wasted verbiage past these three crucial syllables.

mikeb302000 said...

Roberta, No, it didn't fret me at all, I just don't agree it's a "quintessentially American act."

You're right the Secret Service statement was in support of the local laws. My take on it is it was politically necessary, don't you think? Could they have said they're worried about the additional work load and fear they won't be able to carry out their mandate? No, of course not. They said "officially" what they had to say, but privately, what do you think they're saying? "Thank god there are so many good Americans showing up with guns?"

Roberta X said...

Yeah, Mike, most of them probably are. They realize what you do not, that an openly-carried firearm is no threat. (How many Presidental assassins, succcessful or not, open-carried? None. Zero).

Looky, if'n you wanna disarm Americans on the far edges of almost being presence of their "ruler," (really just some guy a majority voted for -- or did they vote against his opponents?) you're wanting to turn the clock back to the time of kings. You're also asking far more of the Secret Service than they can or should provide and you are saying that the President's mere distant presence trumps the rights of citizens. Tell me, did you believe that during the Bush administration, too? Or is it okay to openly, clearly, specifically threaten a Republican but a dire sin to even let you imagine the same threat to a Democrat?

Y'all make me want to throw up.

mikeb302000 said...

Roberta asked, "Or is it okay to openly, clearly, specifically threaten a Republican but a dire sin to even let you imagine the same threat to a Democrat? "

Where ever do you come up with these ideas? Certainly not from anything I've written.

I say it's stupid, risky and dangerous to carry at these rallies and it has nothing to do with what party the president belongs to.

But since you brought it up, did you see the video I postedthat showed people getting arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts? Do you think this open carry nonsense would have been allowed at a Bush appearance?

Roberta X said...

I am entirely certain that all legal bearng of arms by citizens outside the secured perimeter was allowed at events where President Bush -- or Mr. McCain or Mrs. Clinton, for that matter -- put in an appearance. What part of "outside the secured perimeter" are you not understanding? Open carry is legal in Arizona, as it is in a majority of the States. Get over it.

As for overt, open, clear threats to President Bush, the blogosphere has done a wonderful job of documenting them, and that includes the Left side of it. The overwhelming majority of the persons so doing did so with impunity, even though the uttering of threats its an act not generally held to be protected by the First Amendment.

Stop trying to pretend that means are intentions and vice versa, Mike: simply carrying a gun (or a knife or a lighter and a can of hairspray, or Mace or an ice pick or a frikkin' bagga peanuts is not a threat. Brandishing a sign or wearing a T-shirt exhorting readers to kill a specific person is a threat.

Also? Whining is very unappealing coming from a grown man. Can't you do better?

Roberta X said...

PS: and by "entirely certain" in re the bearing of arms near these other SS-protected politicians, I am referring to something I have actually done,though for some of them it was at distances in excess of a one mile and less than six. Come to think of it, I was shopping within blocks of Mr. Obama on one of his visits here and I had a gun on me. So what?