jps wrote:
Couldn't agree with this writer more...


At The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Gingrey’s home state, writer
Jay Bookman takes issue with the increasing trend of Americans coming
to public meeting with deadly force in-tow.

“It is attempted intimidation,” he wrote. “It is an acknowledgment
that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the
day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue
using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase
at a local gunshop.”

Bookman continues: “It also reflects a growing mindset among some that
the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen,
one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that
attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in
question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to
him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong.
So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a
gun.”

I suspect that the president is much safer with people who are legally
carrying guns than with anyone else. In most states those who have guns
have passed back ground checks, so have been "validated".