Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
I'm almost willing to bet it was Ron Paul. I saw a similar video.flb_78 wrote:I saw a video where 1 candidate actually went into a gun shop and talked to folks there, he even handled a firearm.Hyunchback wrote:Quite frankly if the politician doesn't want to trust me with a gun when he's talking to me then I don't want him in office, ever.
My money and my vote don't care for cowards.
I don't believe the Secret Service is there because he's campaigning, I think they're there because he's a U.S. Senator. I could be wrong, but I'd bet there weren't any Secret Service following any of the "former Governor of the State of X" candidates around.45 4 life wrote:My Thoughts,
1. I disagree with tax payers dollars paying for secret service protection for someone running for office. Let their campaigns pay for private security if they are worried.
Bingo!!!Hyunchback wrote:Quite frankly if the politician doesn't want to trust me with a gun when he's talking to me then I don't want him in office, ever.
My money and my vote don't care for cowards.
Nope, it was Fred...He did it a few times during his short campaign...Didn't do one of those obligatory hunting trips with all the garb on...He just simply visited a few gunshops, and talked shop with folks in and around those places about the issue...LarryH wrote:I'm almost willing to bet it was Ron Paul. I saw a similar video.flb_78 wrote:I saw a video where 1 candidate actually went into a gun shop and talked to folks there, he even handled a firearm.Hyunchback wrote:Quite frankly if the politician doesn't want to trust me with a gun when he's talking to me then I don't want him in office, ever.
My money and my vote don't care for cowards.
(Could have been Mike Huckabee, too.)
Political events are all about getting an emotional frenzy going. I'm not into being around folks who are having near religious experiences while listening to professional liars. And then if something does happen, I'm stuck in what may suddenly become a non-permissive enviroment with a gun that may get me arrested or even killed by an officer who isn't thoroughly switched on.Russell wrote:...If there were no 30.06 signs, it seems that if you were in that line you would have been able to carry legally into the speech.
But what do you guys think? Would it have been worth it with all of the secret service around? An accidental print or failure to conceal could wind up with you immediately being shot.
Secret Service protecton is defined and I do not have the exact details, but I believe that all presidential candidates are allowed SS protection. They can decline it if they want.nedmoore wrote:If the candidate has a high enough profile the secret service will provide protection. I do not think that senators have protection from the secret service. Normally candidates have to wait until they are nominated for protection, but Obama and Hillary both have it. Hillary already had protection because she was the former first man- I mean lady.
I suspect that the Secret Service has jurisdiction that overrides TX law in a case like this.seamusTX wrote:46.035(c) prohibits CHL holders from carry weapons at meetings of governmental entities (city council, for example), and it applies only if a 30.06 sign is posted.
There is no statutory way that CHL holders can be kept out of an event of this type in a city-owned property. It's just one of those facts of life that it can happen anyway.
- Jim
And everything worked out fine, proving the anti-gun politicians wrong.DALLAS -- Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.
what you said makes since with the exception of once Obama is elected. We are getting a little ahead of ourselves aren't we?anygunanywhere wrote:Once Obama is elected and if his copresident decides to run in the future once we are all happily settled in "the camps" then she will have SS protection too because she is a candidate.
Having SS would not make me not vote for someone, I just do not like the idea of We The People footing the bill.frankie_the_yankee wrote:Those who say they wouldn't vote for anybody who would employ Secret Service security or who would ban guns in their presence are those who, if they really held to that, would not vote for anybody period.
Why not?45 4 life wrote: Having SS would not make me not vote for someone, I just do not like the idea of We The People footing the bill.
The old slippery slope argument. First we can't hang around presidential candidates while armed to the teeth. Next thing you know, we'll need a permit to tie our shoes.45 4 life wrote: They tell me I cannot be armed while in there presence, that is somthing different. How many other rights are you willing to give up.
That's not exactly how it works under the constitution.45 4 life wrote: When I am required to go through DC I play by their rules, when they come to Texas they need to play by our rules.
I can't find anything in my Texas CHL Handbook that restricts me from carrying in a Public event. Maybe I don't understand. What exactly is a public event?Liko81 wrote: Public event. Guns aren't allowed, 30.06 or otherwise, because it falls under 46.03 or 46.035 (not sure which it is, but it's one of the two).
FWIW all presidents elected after 1997 only get SS protection for 10 years after they leave office. All prior presidents had (and will continue to have) SS protection for life.nedmoore wrote: All ex-presidents and their families are provided SS protection.
