In addition to the emotional charged rhetoric being spewed at town meetings around America concerning health care reform, we now have dozens of gun toting citizens showing up at Presidential speaking events as some kind of symbolic statement concerning their second amendment right to carry a semi-automatic weapon near the president. While their actions are already constitutionally protected, and many states allow open carry policies concerning firearms, they are needlessly stretching the protective capabilities of the US Secret Service. For example, an open gun carried by a legitimate protestor could afford some non gun carrying psychotic with the opportunity to grab a gun from the protester and begin shooting. How many protestors, unlike police officers, have training in gun retention procedures? While the second amendment does not speak about carrying a gun in the immediate vicinity of the President, for some reason gun rights protesters have grabbed the idea as “close enough for government work” and are getting their 15 minutes of fame as they are proudly photographed in these venues with a six-gun on their hip.

The reality is that our current president has had more threats against him than any other seated president (up 400% from his not too popular predecessor), and the presence of guns when he is in town does nothing to further secure and protect his life or the lives of bystanders, in fact just the opposite. These are challenging times; totally unlike those times reported in years gone by straight forward reporters like Huntley, Brinkley, and Cronkite. When you turn on TV or the radio you are likely to be confronted with rabid dialogue, both from the left and the right, demanding you both accept and believe their interpretation of the news and events. If you don’t totally subscribe to their caustic rhetoric they imply you are either crazy or just too simple or stupid to understand their singular lock on the truth and reality. We no longer get the news; we get emotional laden spam that is sent across the airways in an attempt to make you adopt the talk show host’s polarized point of view. You must either be with him, or her, or against them, for they do not allow that anyone other than them can be right or should dare to have a different thought.

We have lost millions of jobs, thousands of homes, a significant portion of our meger savings for retirement and Americans are frightened, angry, confused, and frustrated in this time of diminished hope for the future. When you mix these conflicted emotions with firearms you get a potentially deadly combination. Such was the case for 89-year-old James von Brunn, the shooter and killer of Officer Stephen Johns this past June at the US Holocaust Museum. At von Brunn’s age you would normally expect him to be playing checkers with other retirees instead of focusing his anger, frustration and rage at an international symbol of the futility of violence and death. Murderous incidents like this have happened over and over in America this year to include Robert Stewart who in March used a shotgun to kill 8 people in a NC nursing home, and Jiverly Wong, the man this past April who killed 13 in a Binghamton, NY Immigration Center, and George Sodini who was responsible for 4 deaths in a PA health club, or Seung hui Cho, the April 2007 shooter at Virginia Tech who shot and killed 32. When you combine the common emotions of anger, fear, rage, frustration, confusion, hatred, and the need to blame someone else for your problems into one person and then put a firearm in his hands, the potential for acting out negatively against another symbol of such an individual’s frustration, like the President, may become even more real.

Many gun carriers have also tried and succeeded in getting close to presidents in the past, people like John Wilkes Booth, and Giuseppe Zangaras, and Squeaky Frome, and Sara Jane Moore, and John Hinckley, and Lee Harvey Oswald, all with varying degrees of deadly success. Seventeen US Presidents and Presidents-elect have been targeted by assassins, including the last seven in a row. Most in law enforcement know when you hear the word “Gun” yelled aloud, especially when the President or another high profile individual is nearby, you cover and evacuate the person being protected while searching the eyes and hands of the hundreds of people in the crowd as you try to identify the threat before he or she gets a shot off. What happens when “Gun” is yelled out now and 100 citizens are all standing around leaning on their AR-15s, shotguns, and semiautomatic pistols? How do we identify the threat, especially if a number of the gun carrying citizens now decide to draw their weapons in some distorted sense of self protection? That could be an instant recipe for death and could turn into the shootout at the B/O (Barack Obama) corral. While the USSS can use metal detectors to screen out the gun carrying people who try to get close to the president in an enclosed venue, the ins and outs (doors of the venue) plus the outdoor public appearances present additional challenges for those who are charged with protecting POTUS’s life. Police and the Secret Service neither want nor need extra guns in venues they are trying to protect. If you want to be extra eyes and ears to be alert for a threat, that’s fine, but a citizen should never see it to be his responsibility, in such circumstances, to draw a gun and go to war with what he had perceived to be a threat and what just could be an armed undercover officer.

Guns in the hands of civilians simply have no purpose at such high profile meetings and could likely result in tragedy and not a Tom Clancy (CIA operative Jack Ryan) gun grabbing intervention that would save a British monarch (Patriot Games.) These are the things the movies and not real life are made from and guns near the president are simply an additional threat with which to deal, with a USSS Agent or police officer likely having to be assigned one-on-one to such individuals, this to insure they do not act inappropriate and that no one attempts to take their gun or otherwise create havoc; additional duties such protective organizations just don’t need in these challenging times.

Is the threat to the President greater because of our current national economic situation, especially after the news is “cooked up” to keep the ever angry talk show on the hunt, one for which he probably needs a rabies shot to continue his or her endless rants.

A recent author suggests the USSS has been overtaxed and is angry and frustrated that that agency cannot carry out its responsibilities, especially the protection of the president. That additional rhetoric, probably from a few disaffected employees, provides a twisted picture of the agency charged with the protection of the man code named “Renegade.” They have been criticized because they “let” him throw out the first baseball in Washington from the pitcher’s mound without protective agents encircling him, this when President Reagan a few decades ago threw out the ball from along the third line while surrounding by guards.

The reality is that we have tens of thousands of men and women in harms way around the world, many who get shot at on a daily basis. The President represents America, and we are not afraid and he should not be afraid to stand up among our people. The President must project that he is not fearful and in command so we, and the world, can all follow his example. While the USSS might like to "safely secure" the President in the White House basement for 4 to 8 years, his only public appearance via television, such is not reality. As the leader of the free world he cannot project personal fear for to do so can bring about a backlash of public and world opinion like the last President Bush received when he didn’t immediately return to the Whitehouse after 9/11. Commanders lead from the front so their troops can see them, and so should our President.

I think there has been enough protest concerning gun carry rights in the vicinity of the present to get all of our collective attention and such should stop before some tragedy results due to the actions of these few. First rule for self protection, don’t go places where you might need a gun. Second rule, walk or run from trouble. The presence of a gun just presents too quick of a resolution in a highly charged confrontational situation. Do I believe in self defense, of course, but I don’t believe that people should be out looking for a fight to prove how big their gun is. Be a good observer but be careful when you consider not your legal right to carry, but the true reason you really want to carry a gun. I had to in Vietnam and in the FBI for a total of 28 years, and it was a tremendous responsibility to maintain both your shooting skills and your ever present thoughts regarding when to shoot or not shoot. You may have the legal right to shoot at someone, but if you miss your first shot, like up to 75% of police do, who might you have accident hit that was standing to the left or right of your actual target?

While Americans go into combat every day in the middle east, and police officers face somewhat similar situations in American, as civilians we need to first seek alternatives other than deadly force before we start shooting. If your life or the life of an innocent in is danger, we do what we are trained to do. Training and experience are the key words though, things missing from many gun loving gun totters who present their own special threat to those around them, including the president.