It may be lawful for demonstrators outside President Obama’s appearances to be armed with guns, but it’s wrong, argues Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne. “Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument,” he writes. “Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them.” Besides, he adds, the gun-toters are making us look “foolish and lawless” in the eyes of the world, and he doubts that conservatives would have welcomed armed, angry leftists at public events for Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. He concludes: “Will some group of responsible conservatives, preferably life members of the NRA, have the decency to urge their followers to leave their guns at home when they go out to protest the president? Is that too much to ask?”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
285 Comments
Methinks you asketh too much, we have a God given right to pack heat.
And, what’s a protest without a semi-automatic peace maker?
Go fuq yourself E.J. Dionne.
Leave my Rights and Liberty alone.
““Will some group of responsible conservatives, preferably life members of the NRA, have the decency to urge their followers to leave their guns at home when they go out to protest the president? Is that too much to ask?”
Well good luck. The cons I know around here bring guns to picnics and other social mixers.
Just think of the excitement we could have had if the protestors at the DNC chicago protest had been carrying ar-15’s!
I suppose one can make the pedantic distinction that the guns weren’t brought inside the event.
But, imagine, just for one moment, if anyone had dared to pack heat outside a Bush event.
Sure, the law is the law, but anyone who didn’t sleepwalk during that period knows full well that gentleman would be exercising his 2nd Amendment rights briefly before having his face crushed into the pavement, and arrested on some trumped-up charge.
But that brings us to another, more important pedantic distiction: Dionne isn’t saying that such person should be arrested or harrassed.
He’s saying that it’s a bad idea, at least if you’re more interested in democratic discourse than deliberate intimidation.
The Town halls should be held as schools, the federal charges could be brought against the protestors.
The Town halls should be held at schools, the federal charges could be brought against the protestors.
Oh for a device that makes bullets explode.
MSNBC: ObamaCare Protesters ‘Racist,’ Including Black Gun-Owner
By Kyle Drennen (Bio | Archive)
August 18, 2009 – 13:19 ET
On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer fretted over health care reform protesters legally carrying guns: “A man at a pro-health care reform rally…wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip….there are questions about whether this has racial overtones….white people showing up with guns.” Brewer failed to mention the man she described was black.
snip
Not only did Brewer, Ratigan, and Toure fail to point out the fact that the gun-toting protester that sparked the discussion was black, but the video footage shown of that protester was so edited, that it was impossible to see that he was black. The man appeared at a health care rally outside of President Obama’s speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, Arizona.
Well, it certainly is within their right. And it certainly is legal. But, in my opinion, it certaily is dumb.
“Do guns at Obama rallies threatren[sic] violence?”
No. The mere presence of a gun no more threatens violence than the presence of a spoon threatens obeisity. IIRC, one of the persons at an Arizona (I think) rally was asked why he carried his gun (openly, and legally) to the rally. His answer: “Because I can.” And that’s good enough.
BTW – it doesn’t help to have the MSM going all hysterical, and even twisting facts to fit the chosen narrative. Witness this little bit of MSNBC disingenuousness (Yes, I know it’s Hot Air; open your minds and go watch the video anyway):
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/19/unreal-msnbc-edits-clip-of-man-with-gun-at-obama-rally-to-support-racism-narrative/
How does MSNBC pontificate that there’s an “air of racism,” that those who oppose the presidents policies, who are doing all these nefarious deeds, are racists, when the man they show with the gun is BLACK? NOTE, however, MSNBC carefully edited their footage to hide that fact. “White people showing up with guns . . . ” except that the person you showed with the guns is black.
Ooops. I guess facts don’t matter.
Having a firearm strapped in with a body conforming holster helps keep the thugs like SEIU away. :D
…in addition, something none of the media told you, was that at the Phoenix event the people carrying (about 12 of them) had coordinated the day before with the local sheriffs department, were escorted by sheriffs officers, and the Secret Service were notified ahead of time.
But to tell the foks that would seriously cut back on the pantschiitting that ensued among the media and punditry class.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/08/18/msnbc-no-mention-black-gun-owner-among-racist-protesters
Forgot the link in that 12:15 post.
How does MSNBC pontificate that there’s an “air of racism,” that those who oppose the presidents policies, who are doing all these nefarious deeds, are racists, when the man they show with the gun is BLACK? NOTE, however, MSNBC carefully edited their footage to hide that fact. “White people showing up with guns . . . ” except that the person you showed with the guns is black.
Ooops. I guess facts don’t matter
—————————————-
Only libs are allowed to play the race card
Yes the media blew this all out of proportion, and maybe (because I haven;t actually seen the coverage) slanted it to their own advantage. But, I still maintian that bringing a gun to such a high security area as where the President of the United States is going to be, is not the smartest move. THere are many rights that should be executed in a smart way. Pedestrians have the right of way in a crosswalk too. But to walk in front of a moving car becuse you have the right of way isn’t the smartest thing to do. You could be right, but you could be dead right. No points for you.
“Sure, the law is the law, but”—Rage
I love it, “the law is the law, but”
It’s that ‘but’ that you libs love and hold to the most.
No law was broken, no one was arrested, no harm came….except of course you libs getting your shorts all bunched up.
Just how do you know the wasn’t lawfully armed to protect himself in the event he was attacked by a bunch of counter protesters, or union thugs.
“Just how do you know the wasn’t lawfully armed to protect himself in the event he was attacked by a bunch of counter protesters, or union thugs.”
As I might add has happened recently at some of the townhall meetings!
No law was broken, no one was arrested, no harm came…
Well, that’s not entirely true, there were some wet panties and that was just amongst the male Libs!
Not every gun owner is an NRA member. Not every gun owner is a Republican.
Guns have been apart of our history. On a tour of the state capitol I learned that legislators carried guns on the house floor. One even fired his gun on the house floor.
“Sure, the law is the law, but”—Rage
. . . that never stopped the Cheney regime from cracking down on protesters.
How quickly CONs forget how people who had the audacity to show up wearing anti-Bush t-shirts were ushered out of Town Meetings and to jail just a couple of years ago.
How many Americans have been killed by firearms this year?
How many Americans have been killed by t-shirts this year?
Squeaky Fromme just got out of prison — after 34 years! — for having a handgun in the vicinity of Gerald Ford. An unloaded handgun.
(Okay, Squeaky had other issues, but I still don’t remember the NRA coming to her defense.)
34 years.
Perhaps one of you CONs can provide me a link for that.
Ummm. Didn;t Squeaky actually POINT HEr GUN at the POTUS?
Why would the NRA come to her defense?
Ummm. Didn;t Squeaky actually POINT HEr GUN at the POTUS?
Why would the NRA come to her defense?
Another opportunity for Americans to see the town-hall disruptors for exactly who and what they are.
“Squeaky Fromme just got out of prison — after 34 years! — for having a handgun in the vicinity of Gerald Ford. An unloaded handgun.”
Patently wrong.
The LIBs are always looking for an excuse to trivialise the peoples’ Rights and Liberties.
I will not bend.
Do guns at Obama rallies threaten violence?
==========================================
I didn’t know Violence felt threatened….
Jeez, everyone’s a victim these days, even Violence.
Wasn’t Libs that wanted to press charges against a political cartoonist that drew a picture of bush hanging in effigy.
Or Libs that were raiding private home political meetings.
You must be confused again.
You must be confused again
==================================
I just read your post and it appears you are the one that is confused.
(Re-read it, please)
It is one hundred percent right they are looking for a incident where they are oppressed.
It called self fulfilling prophecy, in this case it feeling oppressed they are doing something to cause them to be oppressed. Reasonable people on both sides of the issue are caused to cringe at the sight.
Was it legal? Yes it was they did not violate the law, but just because something is legal it still should be done prudently. I am legally married to my wife, as such it is legal for my wife and I to have sex. But it is not prudent for us to have sex in a crowd at a town hall meeting!
Though the reasonable on the side of 2nd Amendment rights would argue their right to own those firearms and the legality of them having those gun in plain sight in public. They also realize that these actions were not prudent and in fact endangers those very rights and legality. Again it causes reasonable people on both side of these issues to cringe at the sight and rethink the issues. This can lead to consideration of new and more restrictive laws and regulations.
The firearms in my house should not be seen as a threat to you, they would never be unless you would chose to be a threat to my household. And also if I am wearing a firearm in public the only threat to you would be at your causing. The vast majority of gun owners are like me, prudent in my practices and reasonability’s.
Those who staged this were not being prudent and reasonable, they acted out of paranoia and fear.
In a sense they were being end of day-ers. I will follow up about how the paranoia works.
But it is not prudent for us to have sex in a crowd at a town hall meeting!
===================================
Because that is illegal.
“But it is not prudent for us to have sex in a crowd at a town hall meeting!”
That does not help your argument. Sex in public is not legal.
Pinch Poke you owe me a Coke
Again it causes reasonable people on both side of these issues to cringe at the sight and rethink the issues. This can lead to consideration of new and more restrictive laws and regulations.
=====================================
No.
Those “cringes” come from the irrational and lead to irrational damages to Rights.
If you question the validity of your Rights, they can easily be taken away.
Apparently to some, Rights are trivial things.
Well, they are absolute things to me. It is sad that some Americans can no longer understand this very basic American principle.
By end of day-ers I meant that there is a foreseeable day coming where there will be a total gun control.
either though the actions of legal legislation. Or as a result of the lost of the Democracy within the U.S.
We did come closer to the later in the last eight years then most would suspect.
The recent incidence has caused me to reflect on what was happening during the Clinton administration.
I was not aware of it until it was pointed out yesterday that it is actually a common occurrence when ever a Democratic President is elected. Such thoughts and groups occurred during the Kennedy administration.
A unreasoning fear and suspicion, I would not call it indoctrination as much as simple re-affirming of a unreasoned concern. It often works like this: I say that given the chance Regular will steal your can of coffee.
That sounds pretty unlikely huh? Now Regular happens to come visit you and shortly after he leaves you discover the can of coffee in the cabinet is gone! You have trouble believing he would have stolen it, but you do not see any other reasonable explanation for it happening. The reality maybe this, your mother having a key to your house comes in while you were gone and reaching for something in the cabinet.
She accidentally knocked off the can of coffee and it spilled on the floor. She got the broom and dustpan out and cleaned it up. She put the can and spilled coffee in the trash can, then noticed the trash needed taken out she took it out. Replaced the trash can and left, she did not want to tell you and planned on just replacing it later.
But all you know is that I told you Regular would steal your coffee and sure enough the coffee is now missing. It would not occur to you to look in the trash for it or even to notice that trash can is now empty.
In many respect that is also how such concerns are re-enforced within the 2nd amendment supporters.
There is no real plain thing to point to that can be unquestioning a movement to take your guns away.
Just loosely associated things that point to it coming.
Looking back to those days of being convinced that Bill Clinton was after my firearms. I can not point to any real effort of his to do so. There were the incidences of if I recall Barney Frank and Chuck Rangel.
One wanting to limit the ownership of firearms to only those who would not hold more then one round at a time.
The other to place such a large tax on bullets that it would be impossible to buy more then a couple at a time.
What did become a lynch pin was the Assault weapons ban, the majority of gun owners do not have a problem with the restrictions on full automatic weapons. But this was against semi-auto and the definition was so broad that it included several models that we had. For instance I have a 22, bolt action rifle that has a ten shot clip. Under the definition that rifle is an assault weapon. The SKS is a semi-auto and it became the poster child for the assault weapons ban. It is a rifle that many use for deer hunting because it cost less and has great accuracy with a round that is effective.
One problem is that unless the Government wanted to start out with open warfare.
Their actions would come more from a inch at a time. I little law here and a little restriction there till finally you wake up to the BATF standing beside your bed and demanding your 22 rifle. So paranoia becomes the rule of the day, you start not depending on the evening news for information on what the Government is doing to restrict or ban.
It becomes trusted sources who have the same interests as you do. Often they speak from that point of paranoia. Till you finally buy a MAC90 ( this is basically a AK47 that has a solid stock so it is not covered under the AWB) at the first chance. You end up with several 100 round battle packs of 7.62X39 M.M. rounds and at least a couple of 30 round banana clips in the closet.
You find and tend to talk with others who are equally insightful to the threat that the Government poses to your 2nd amendment rights. If you do not find yourself a member of a organized Militia, then you find yourself a member of a unaffiliated verbal agreement to if anyone within the agreement finds the BATF standing outside their house. With a simple call you and the others will show up and stand between these government agents and the caller. Willing to safeguard them with armed resistance.
NOW, I am watchful of what concerns the 2nd amendment and the actions of President Obama and the the Democratic majority in Congress and the Senate. I am far more aware of their actions now then back in the 90’s.
And other then some isolated grumbling, I have just to see anything that is of a concern for me about gun control or being worth a worry of Obama. In fact he has already said he would NOT support any renewal of the Assault weapons ban. Or restrictions on gun rights that are serious threats to our rights.
What is odd to me is I am more aware of Obama saying flat out he would not reinstall the AWB then those who are living in fear of it happening.
Anti I’ll play, so are you assuming there is a law where these armed protesters were that said it is illegal for me to have sex with my wife at the town hall meeting? Or do you actually know this? Laws often vary from one place to the next, some places it is still legal to wear a firearm openly and so it is not.
so are you assuming there is a law where these armed protesters were that said it is illegal for me to have sex with my wife at the town hall meeting?
=====================================
Are you serious?
writerdog, I am unaware of a right to public sex in the United States of America.
But, I keep an eye out for it, in case I feel the need to exercise said right.
;)
“Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument,” he writes. “Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them.”
—————————
I suppose then, the Secret Service and Police should also refrain from bringing firearms to these debates.
Black Panthers used to march with guns and Ronald Reagan as Gov of Cafifornia made it illegal to do so
writerdog,
What great sacrifice did our founding fathers endure to secure the right of public sex?
I struggle to use the word sacrifice due to the fact that the majority of Americans have not experienced anything remotely similar to the sacrifices of our founding fathers, their supporters, and our Military, to secure those rights.
Also I seem to recall people being arrested at Bush Rallies for wearing anti bush T shirts
There should be a federal law enforcing ‘gun free zones’ around the presidential events, for that matter around political events, unless you’re part of a security detail or in law enforcement.
I also know of several NOW members who plan on carrying when they go protest Operation Rescue in Neb in case they get attacked, I wonder if the Right wingers support that?
When does a “law” enforce anything?
TomPaine
Posted August 20, 2009 at 2:32 pm | Permalink
I also know of several NOW members who plan on carrying when they go protest Operation Rescue in Neb in case they get attacked, I wonder if the Right wingers support that?
——————————–
As long as they are carrying legally – yes.
Say Tom, are these NOW members you know who will be carrying guns, all Kansas residents?
Well, I don’t know what message the guy in the pic is TRYING to send.
The one I’m getting is “I’m unreasonable and possibly crazy!”
“Besides, he adds, the gun-toters are making us look “foolish and lawless” in the eyes of the world,”
—————————-
Liberal plants.
No doubt.
Worst
President
Ever
By the way, I saw this guy on “Hardball”.
He IS unreasonable and crazy.
Say Tom, are these NOW members you know who will be carrying guns, all Kansas residents? The ones I know here are I would assume People who live in Neb would go but I dont Know?
“No.
Those “cringes” come from the irrational and lead to irrational damages to Rights“.
That is in a sense is my point, the surest way to lose a right is to abuse it to the point where there is great concern. Would it be a irrational concern when some one wearing a deathly weapon is there to express their outrage? Their action do not just effect their own rights and the lawful practice of wearing a firearm openly. Let say that there is no law that makes having sex at a town hall meeting illegal. The surest way to get one passed would be for my wife and I to have sex at a town hall meeting huh?
With the recent decision of the SCOTUS has came some assumptions. The federal Government can not violate your 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm. BUT it does not mean that you have a right to carry that firearm where ever you go. Localities can not make a law that is less restrictive then a Federal law. But they can make a more restrictive law then that of the Federal law.
“If you question the validity of your Rights, they can easily be taken away“
With a right comes also a reasonability, never arbitrarily express that right or make your right a issue for others who also have a right.
“Apparently to some, Rights are trivial things.
Well, they are absolute things to me. It is sad that some Americans can no longer understand this very basic American principle“.
Here is what my dad said to me about my rights, “ Your rights end at the top of your nose. And everyone else’s start there too!”. I agree that many have forgotten what it took for us to have those rights, And often take them for granted, it is legal for me to smoke my cigarettes. I see it in sense a right I have to smoke even though I know it is not spelled out in the Constitution. But also I know others do not smoke and they see they too have a “right” not to breath my smoke. That too is not spelled out in the Constitution.
As such when I smoke my cigarette outside of those places that don’t allow smoking within their business. I move away from the doors so no one has to walk through my smoke. Even though it is legal for me to smoke and feel I have a “right” to smoke. Being responsible in my practice does not give a concern either irrational or to make it a rational one for other to see a reason to act against my legal practice or to act against what I see as my right.
writerdog
Posted August 20, 2009 at 2:14 pm | Permalink
…that said it is illegal for me to have sex with my wife at the town hall meeting?
Please, no one needs to know your short comings in public. :)
The real question is: Where are Hank and Nathan? Why aren’t they chiming in on a gun question?
They’re always good for a laugh.
Dennis (gun owner, but smart enough to not take one to a heated public gathering)
Please, no one needs to know your short comings in public. :)
Regular you have guess the reason I don’t!
writerdog, I understand your point. However, I disagree with you when related to this matter.
In the area where the scary man with the gun and the sign are concerned, he had the Right and it was perfectly legal. No threats were made. He should not be persecuted for an action that was well within his rights and agreeable with the letter of the law. To push beyond that, you enter wish-washiness that leads to idiot created constraints.
BTW,
Just to be an ass hole, I would have shown up with a musket and a corn knife.
Oh, and a sign.
(but I doubt Obama would have understood the meaning.)
TomPaine
Posted August 20, 2009 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
Say Tom, are these NOW members you know who will be carrying guns, all Kansas residents? The ones I know here are I would assume People who live in Neb would go but I dont Know?
—————————–
Nebraska does not accept out-of-state Carry Permits.
So if your buddies are Kansas residents, and carrying at a protest in Nebraska, they would be carrying illegally.
However, if they are retired LEO, they can carry in all 50 states.
Till you finally buy a MAC90 ( this is basically a AK47 that has a solid stock so it is not covered under the AWB) at the first chance. You end up with several 100 round battle packs of 7.62X39 M.M. rounds and at least a couple of 30 round banana clips in the closet.
———————————-
You should also note that the MAC90 is semi-auto and not fully automatic.
And how does that solid stock make it safer then an AK?
BTW, they are not Clips, they are magazines.
Gotta love it, gun lectures from the ignorant. Ignorance is bliss.
ANTI
Posted August 20, 2009 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
BTW,
Just to be an ass hole, I would have shown up with a musket and a corn knife.
—————————–
And pepper spray!
Y’know, you gun nuts are just going to keep on pushing until you reach absolute absurdity (and you’re pretty close to it now). Don’t be too surprised when one of you creates an ugly incident that spawns a backlash like you’ve never seen! Something about rights coming with responsibilities.
JimJohnson
Posted August 20, 2009 at 3:17 pm | Permalink
ANTI
Posted August 20, 2009 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
BTW,
Just to be an ass hole, I would have shown up with a musket and a corn knife.
—————————–
And pepper spray!
———-
And toilet paper!
…wait – nm, it’s not Halloween yet…
Anti the armed protesters at the Phoenix town hall was organized by someone who at least is associated with the Viper Militia. This group was convicted of plotting the bombing of Federal buildings a year and a half after OKC. They had 500 pounds of fertilizer, full autos and plans for a repeat of OKC.
Maybe because I got older and questionable wiser, but I do not want these types to be associated with protecting my rights. I stand for my own rights and respect them too much allow such an association. Do I still have a gun I would grab if that day came when my own government tried to disarm me? Yes and only from my cold dead hand will they get it.
I still remember all the rhetoric I use to spout more days then not. For the most part I still believe that rhetoric but realize only that part which I have a reasonable concern to have.
Be watchful as such a occurrence will not be done in a openly done attempt. But neither will it come without warning and will only come if it is we do not pay reasonable attention. Perhaps that is what bothers me the most overall about my fellow Americans.
Their daily concern is more trying to find a good parking spot at Wal-Mart then what is happening within their own Government.
Jed
Posted August 20, 2009 at 3:18 pm | Permalink
Y’know, you gun nuts are just going to keep on pushing until you reach absolute absurdity (and you’re pretty close to it now).
========================================
Well Jed,
I suggest you back off on your “Destroy Liberty Campaign”. We are just standing up for our Liberties and trying to keep you from chiseling them away.
Remember we have the guns. You are the ones who should be concerned about “backlash”.
Start by being an American again Jed.
If you want to be the flavor of the week European citizen, move there. Leave the believers in freedom, Americas foundations, and principles alone.
writerdog
Posted August 20, 2009 at 3:28 pm | Permalink
Anti the armed protesters at the Phoenix town hall was organized by someone who at least is associated with the Viper Militia. This group was convicted of plotting the bombing of Federal buildings a year and a half after OKC. They had 500 pounds of fertilizer, full autos and plans for a repeat of OKC.
Maybe because I got older and questionable wiser, but I do not want these types to be associated with protecting my rights.
===============================
If what you state is true Writerdog, I agree with you.
I am not delusional enough to believe that there are not groups of ass holes USING the cause of Liberty for their own gain, not Americas. Those folks are as traitorous as those who would make us all slaves to government. And should be treated as such, traitors.
ANTI
Posted August 20, 2009 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
writerdog
Posted August 20, 2009 at 3:28 pm | Permalink
Anti the armed protesters at the Phoenix town hall was organized by someone who at least is associated with the Viper Militia. This group was convicted of plotting the bombing of Federal buildings a year and a half after OKC. They had 500 pounds of fertilizer, full autos and plans for a repeat of OKC.
Maybe because I got older and questionable wiser, but I do not want these types to be associated with protecting my rights.
===============================
If what you state is true Writerdog, I agree with you.
=================================
That’s an IF, until proven to be true.
Where’s the link?
Till you finally buy a MAC90 ( this is basically a AK47 that has a solid stock so it is not covered under the AWB) at the first chance. You end up with several 100 round battle packs of 7.62X39 M.M. rounds and at least a couple of 30 round banana clips in the closet.
———————————-
You should also note that the MAC90 is semi-auto and not fully automatic.
And how does that solid stock make it safer then an AK?
BTW, they are not Clips, they are magazines.
Gotta love it, gun lectures from the ignorant. Ignorance is bliss.
————————–
Say writerdog, unable to answer these questions?
They had 500 pounds of fertilizer…
500 pounds?
Heck, that’s nothing compared to the amount of BEE ESS fertilizer they keep in Congress.
And it’s spread around in typical Liberal fashion. :)
Do the Libs always resort to name calling as an attempt to marginalize their opposition?
Angry Mobs.
Militias.
Gangs.
Be watchful as such a occurrence will not be done in a openly done attempt. But neither will it come without warning and will only come if it is we do not pay reasonable attention. Perhaps that is what bothers me the most overall about my fellow Americans.
Their daily concern is more trying to find a good parking spot at Wal-Mart then what is happening within their own Government.
=====================================
I absolutely agree, writerdog.
The “occurrence” has been, uh.. occurring for decades under both (R) and (D) administrations.
You are correct, the majority do not see it, and that is the peoples weakness and the powerful thrive on this weakness.
An uninformed populous is a controllable populous.
Most of those on the left don’t agree with open carry or concealed carry laws in general, let alone at a townhall meeting.
So the argument about it being at a townhall meeting is rather disingenuous when those making the argument don’t want open carry or concealed carry at all.
Those who were armed were not near the President and were not inside any of the events. This is why the Secret Service didn’t mess with them.
If they had tried to get inside or anywhere near the President they would have been stopped, asked to leave, or forcibly disarmed and detained as there are existing federal laws which give the Secret Service the ability to do such things to protect the President.
As usual, the only ones making a big deal out of this are the typical anti-gun people who would make a big deal out of anything doing with guns.
And I think GMC70 answered the threads question the best with this:
“No. The mere presence of a gun no more threatens violence than the presence of a spoon threatens obeisity.”
“ANTI” shares his fantasies –
“Just to be an ass hole, I would have….”
You don’t need to take any extra effort “…just to be an ass hole….”
It seems to come natural to you.
So now we have “Boxlock20,” who admitted he doesn’t bother to read the stuff he cuts-and-posts. We have “Regular,” who says his posts are nothing but playing. And now we have “ANTI,” who simply loves to take the opportunity, “…just to be an ass hole.”
I have never understood the objective of blowing up a Fed building. It is as ridiculous as a suicide bomber. The action achieves nothing for the goal of the group to enact a change in direction or a return to a past ideal.
Do these people believe by blowing up a Fed Building, the world will shift on it’s axis?
Also, how does this really affect the ‘enemy’ they are against?? P.S. idiots, your ‘enemy’ doesn’t work in that building, only innocent people, fellow Americans!
Those types of actions do nothing to change the foundational ideals of people, they just destroy life.
Monkeyhawk
Posted August 20, 2009 at 4:01 pm | Permalink
“ANTI” shares his fantasies –
“Just to be an ass hole, I would have….”
You don’t need to take any extra effort “…just to be an ass hole….”
It seems to come natural to you.
=========================================
Yes I am aware, runs in the family.
I didn’t need the intelligence of an ex-radio DJ to point this out.
What’s next on the career ladder for you Monkeyhawk, fence post puller?
Obama rallies
Well at least the authors got that right – it’s all about Barack. These are not “townhall” meetings. Townhall meetings indicate “townspeople” are in attendance. Town people do not all have only one view. They don’t all speak with the same authority or ease. They are regular people.
OBama rallies on the other hand are a carefully choreographed propaganda media events. Rather than “towns people” these events are filled with advid supporters, followers, and union thugs.
ANTI- What’s next on the career ladder for you Monkeyhawk, fence post puller?
——————————-
‘Bama going to give him a shovel ready job!
“I have never understood the objective of blowing up a Fed building.”
Visit the memorial, as I have.
You’ll understand it even less.
“You should also note that the MAC90 is semi-auto and not fully automatic“.
In the case of the AWB that did not seem to make a difference and I did point out that was one of the objection to AWB. It was not banning full auto it ban semi.
“And how does that solid stock make it safer then an AK?”
It does not, but that was one of the point that AWB made. folding stocks verse a solid stock. Why? That came from a point of ignorance as you pointed out. It does not change the caliber or the effect of being shot with it. The solid stock allowed it to be moved to a hunting rifle category. Though I would not recommend using those Chinese’s made pieces of crap as a hunting rifle. With their pressed barrels instead of screwed in they are not that accurate. But hey it was the right price I could afford and at the time the Russian made were not available to me at less almost a grand. That damn Clinton made a deal with the Chinese. They had warehouse loads and they did not want them laying around so they were allowed to ship them here to be sold. So much for Clinton banning Assault weapons huh?
“BTW, they are not Clips, they are magazines“.
Well you know, but in a discussion of rifles and pistols few realize it is called a Magazine. Most of those who are fearful of guns know it as a clip, if you are writing to include them in such a discussion it help to use terms they are familiar with. When their concerns are about the number of rounds held. the term is interchangeable. Now will it make a difference if I put 30 rounds of 7.62X39 in what I called a clip or what you called a magazine. Place it into that MAC90 I use to have, slide the bolt back and pointed it at you then pull the trigger?
“Gotta love it, gun lectures from the ignorant. Ignorance is bliss“.
You also have to love it when someone is more interested in making asinine and arrogant points then actually using their knowledge to add to the discussion. More or less we are on the same side in this. Both concerned about gun rights and that we do not end up with laws that say you can have a weapon in your home. But it is only to collect dust on the protective case it is in. So we have to try and have reasonable discussions before that happens. There are extremists on both side of the issue.
BlueJay
Posted August 20, 2009 at 4:12 pm | Permalink
“I have never understood the objective of blowing up a Fed building.”
Visit the memorial, as I have.
You’ll understand it even less.
===================================
I dunno, I am at an absolute loss for understanding of the act as it is.
However, I will visit the OKC memorial.
Ant,
When those black helicopters you guys are so afraid of come and start taking those guns from your cold dead hands, just remember that you were the ones who created them.
And by the way, I’m not particularly anti-gun- I’ve enjoyed some shooting and gunsmithing myself- I’m anti-yahoo! I’ve lived in areas where drunken yahoos regularly put rounds through my house, shot my dog and terrorized my children. If you can own firearms responsibly, fine by me, but my opinion is that a gun license should require an IQ test and an MMPI! Idiots and crazies are going to destroy your gun rights faster than any liberal could hope to!
What’s next on the career ladder for you Monkeyhawk, fence post puller?
I was thinking wire stretcher.
Could let him pull a some barbed wires and let him experience that sound of snap, followed by the whoooiwweee whoooiwweee whoooiwweee sound as the wire comes back at him. :)
Lost some friends in the OKC bombing. Lived in Midwest City when it happened (suburb of OKC). I was just in the building about a week before visiting the V.A. office there.
Ant,
“However, I will visit the OKC memorial.”
Do that! It’s one of the most beautiful, touching monuments I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot of them.
It is not the same as seeing it on TV.
There, where the building was, and surrounded by other unremarkable buildings was the otherwise unremarkable Federal building. At least two minds were dedicated in a long unwinding plot to put a truck full of explosives in front of it and blow it up.
For no reason other than that Government people worked there.
One WANTS to call the act insane. But it wasn’t. It was the product of people SO turned against their own Government that they were willing to horribly kill any number of people just because they worked for the Government.
I understand and respect healthy suspicion of Government. We must never LOSE it. But maybe it is time for you on the right to bring in some of your furthest flung. Before something horrible happens again.
When those black helicopters
=====================================
Actually Jed there really are “black helicopters”.
I have seen a few while doing RW construction jobs.
However, they weren’t all that scary. Solid flat black, no markings, but you could see US Army through the black paint.
The crew had black flight suits, generally.
I would guess they were Special Forces or Secret Service, not secret .gov agents.
later
I appreciate your input, writerdog.
The Obama Town Halls were open to the public, not filled with an audience with tickets handed out by the Republican Party operatives, like that other guy’s rallies..
So, the question is, for those of you on the left who have a problem with this:
Do you support either concealed carry or open carry laws at all?
“Regular” shares –
“I was thinking wire stretcher.
Could let him pull a some barbed wires and let him experience that sound of snap, followed by the whoooiwweee whoooiwweee whoooiwweee sound as the wire comes back at him.”
As you’ve earlier observed, I must be a “city slicker,” since I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Then again, all too often, no one has any idea what the hell you’re talking about.
Thanks again for explaining to us how your participation in this forum is simply “…to play.”
No one should bother with your posts. You’re just playing!
“Boxlock20″ cuts-and-posts without bothering to read what he cuts-and-posts.
“ANTI” hangs around here “…just to be an ass hole.”
You’ve succeeded, “ANTI.”
And “Boxlock20,” we realize your “facts” have nothing to do with your own opinions (or, for that matter, reality).
And “Regular,” you’re playing with yourself. You’re good at it. Perhaps you could turn pro.
Ant,
“Actually Jed there really are “black helicopters”.
I have seen a few while doing RW construction jobs.”
Was it being followed by a magic rainbow-colored dragon?
Okay, if I should happen to see a black helicopter, I’ll wave- public servants hard at work; I like that! Real rarity!
What is it again “Monkeyhawk”, that you contribute to this forum?
I mean, besides overly worded nonsense.
Jed, if they really were scary government agents as you suggest, I doubt they would allow themselves to eat in the airport “restaurant” in full view of the public.
Jed, you seem to be the only one with concern over these black painted helicopters.
I certainly am not.
And another observation –
“whoooiwweee whoooiwweee whoooiwweee”?
Sorry, but that just seems so…
gayinterior decorator-ish.Next time there’s a WE Blog meet-up, be sure to bring your swatches.
Do guns at Obama rallies threaten violence?
=================================================
Once again the Libs ask the wrong question.
A gun that is pointed at someone threatens violence.
Does a policeman walking up to you, wearing a gun, threaten violence?
Does a policeman walking up to you, wearing a gun, threaten violence?
=============================
Depends if the taser is aimed in my general direction…
False charge: Obama Town hall Meetings “Rather than “towns people” these events are filled with advid supporters, followers, and union thugs.”
The Real Deal:
“There were approximately 1,300 people in the audience. The vast majority of tickets were general admission (split roughly 80/20 between Bozeman and Belgrade respectively, based on their populations). Tickets were limited to two per person and were distributed on a first-come, first-served basis at Bozeman City Hall and Belgrade City Hall. ”
“One man who identified himself as a proud National Rifle Association supporter and believer in the Constitution asked how the government would pay to expand health insurance coverage to 46 million uninsured people.
“You can’t tell us how you’re going to pay for this,” said the questioner, Randy Rathie, a welder from Ekalaka, Montana. “The only way you’re going to get the money is to raise our taxes. That’s the only way you can do that.”"
http://www.thebigskyweekly.com/node/268
DavidB: How do you explain the media calling them “Obama Rallies”?
“ANTI” poses –
“What is it again “Monkeyhawk”, that you contribute to this forum?”
See, that the conundrum of my life.
I can’t contribute mere “play.” That’s “Regular’s” bailiwick.
And on those rare occasions I cut-and-post, I tend to read the stuff. So I’m not in “Boxlock20’s” league.
You, “ANTI,” have pretty much sewn up the “…just to be an ass hole” franchise; I have no hope of reaching the heights you have.
So I’m left casting about, wondering what I might possibly “…contribute to this forum.”
I dunno.
Logic doesn’t seem to work for you.
Informed opinions carry no weight for you.
Cites to facts get in the way of your diatribes and are ignored.
Ridicule of the CON mindset seems to work. But y’all are such easy targets. Sometimes I’m ashamed of myself for exposing your idiocy in such a public forum.
So, to answer your question:
I “…contribute to this forum” your shame and the ridicule you so richly deserve.
“Do guns at Obama rallies threaten violence?”
nope, the guns don’t threaten a thing. goofy thread lead question
writerdog
Posted August 20, 2009 at 4:16 pm | Permalink
“Gotta love it, gun lectures from the ignorant. Ignorance is bliss“.
You also have to love it when someone is more interested in making asinine and arrogant points then actually using their knowledge to add to the discussion.
————————————
Ok, so you were making an asinine point, repeating past gun ban lies about assault weapons (in an incredibly long and poorly spaced post by the way) to argue that Obama won’t ban guns.
I see.
American_Way
Posted August 20, 2009 at 5:02 pm | Permalink
DavidB: How do you explain the media calling them “Obama Rallies”?
———————-
They sure as he11 are NOT town hall meetings.
In addition to Obama’s nationwide propaganda campaign, his side is hiring high-paid PR folks to lobby for his program.
Isn’t that great? Government spending money to lobby for more Government!
“However, I will visit the OKC memorial.”
Well worth the drive. We stayed at the Courtyard Marriot close to Bricktown (tourist area waling distance to bricktown – when the crosswalk is WHITE you better run). Plan a meal at Cattlemen’s Steakhouse. You will thank me later.
Regarding the Memorial. It is touching. No other way to describe it. You have to take the time to go the museum. Allow plenty of time for that. Do it before tripping through the Memorial. Or catch the Memorial again afterwards. Look closely at the tree with the embedded glass.
Go back after dark. It is whole different experience – after having walked the chairs during the day and caught the names.
I went years ago, I was on business but had the wife with me. To this day, I’m not sure how I feel about the experience.
“Government spending money to lobby for more Government!”
Our money.
“Let me get this straight.
Obama’s health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn’t read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,
and financed by a country that is completely broke.
What could possibly go wrong?”
Can you say Haliburton?
Consulting Firm Tied to White House Given Millions for Health Care Ad Campaign
While lobbying analysts say the move to hire a White House-connected ad
agency is logical, some Republicans are questioning whether White House
senior strategist David Axelrod stands to gain from the profits in the
multi-million dollar deal.
A media consulting firm with ties to White House senior strategist David
Axelrod has been hired to produce a multi-million dollar ad campaign
touting the Obama administration’s health care overhaul.
But while lobbying analysts say the move is logical, some Republicans
are questioning whether Axelrod stands to gain from the profits.
AKPD Message and Media, founded by Axelrod, along with firm GMMB, were
paid $12 million by Health Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality
Care, a coalition that includes Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers
of America, or PhRMA, to produce ads promoting President Obama’s health
care reform.
The firms received over $300 million to manage ads for Obama’s
presidential campaign.
You, “ANTI,” have pretty much sewn up the “…just to be an ass hole” franchise-MH
=================================
Fuqin’ A!!!
A sewn up ass hole?
American_Way & BlueJay,
I am in OKC from time to time to pick up an engine or get the boat fixed. Mostly I have been too busy to visit the memorial, which is shameful.
I will MAKE time for the visit on my next trip.
fleettwood
Posted August 20, 2009 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
A sewn up ass hole?
=======================
Heuvos Rancheros is a hell of a drug, Fleettwood, hell of a drug.
Anti Bush protesters were demanded to keep blocks away from Bush. And that’s just when they were armed with brains and words. How in the world can anyone in this life justify toting guns at a presidential anything? Especially while the language on their shirts is threatening?
Leave it to the cons. You just have no moral compass whatsoever.
Amway since you’ve been blown away in the lies department, pretty much anything you have to contribute to the health care argument needs to be ignored completely.
Reports cry racism. White guys with guns at Obama rally.
I missed this yesterday at Newsbusters but Treacher, rightly aghast, tipped me to it this afternoon. Never will you see a starker example of MSNBC getting away with the sort of deception for which Fox News would be pilloried, especially in the context of race. If you missed Monday’s post about this, go watch the footage (or look at this photo) and see if you can deduce why they wouldn’t want to show the guy with the rifle from the neck up during this particular segment. For all the well-deserved heat that MSNBC’s primetime line-up has taken for its demagoguery — Maddow has been notably egregious during the health-care blowup — this proves that they’re not above pulling this crap during their daytime “hard news” segments either.
When you’re done with the clip, scroll through the new photo gallery Zombie’s put together of the many, many, many “Kill Bush” signs at leftist protests over the past eight years. Thank goodness outlets like MSNBC and the Huffington Post took such “blunt, no-argument stances” against that sort of insanity at the time
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/19/unreal-msnbc-edits-clip-of-man-with-gun-at-obama-rally-to-support-racism-narrative/
(The guy is black!
Political Momma you are pretty much a liar yourself.
I haven’t posted lies. Lot’s of facts over the last few months. But no lies.
But keep trying to discredit those with opposing views. It makes your arguments look even dummer.
Amway is right on this one. When you use google images with the strings “kill Bush” and “kill Obama” many more posters, games and t-shirts pop up with the words “kill bush” than “kill Obama.” The “kill Obama” images are mostly of people arrested for threatening to kill Obama, or plotting to kill Obama.
I think CONs should be encouraged to carry guns at all events at all times.
Nothing says “idiot loser” like a dude strutting around in public with a gun.
It makes every sane person wonder what deep seated inadequecy gun toting is compensating for . . .
BTW, has Obama taken away your guns yet?
Apparently not.
As for the MSNBC clip of the assult rifle carrying black man, the clip has obviously been “clipped.” I’d have to see the whole segment.
CapnAmerica offers the same nonsense posts as Monkeyhawk.
Birds of a Feather,
loversroom mates, or perhaps just ill-informed.Your call.
CapnAmerica
Posted August 20, 2009 at 6:42 pm | Permalink
BTW, has Obama taken away your guns yet?
========================================
He’s still kickin’ ain’t he?
DorisKing
Posted August 20, 2009 at 6:45 pm | Permalink
As for the MSNBC clip of the assult rifle carrying black man, the clip has obviously been “clipped.” I’d have to see the whole segment.
=======================================
I don’t think the color of the man makes much difference in the matter.
Is it somehow surprising that a Black man may oppose Obama? If so, why does this bother you?
Furthermore, why is it wrong for an Asian or White man to oppose Obama?
What is disturbing to me is that MSNBC needs a Black man on their panel of commentators to confirm the imaginary racism and a overly ambitious White man to enforce the notion.
The whole idea of racial divide in the Obama campaign and Presidency is clearly a creation of his supporters to guilt the weak into following him, for the fear of being called a racist.
Which of course is an absolutely and unfounded preconception among the masses.
But it works on the idiots, to be sure!
Those lunatics showing up at healthcare rallies must really be dem operatives just out to further embarass cons!
CapnAmerica would be sitting in NAZI Germany while Hitler was rounding up the Jews and preaching hate against them saying…
“but has Hitler killed any Jews yet?”
Well, no, not yet.
Like a black man’s going to show up in a crowd of rwe’s carrying a gun! You must think we’re all stupid as cons.
Phantom,
You mean like this black man?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
“A man toting an assault rifle was among a dozen protesters carrying weapons while demonstrating outside President Obama’s speech to veterans on Monday, but no laws were broken.”
#
Phantom
Posted August 20, 2009 at 7:09 pm | Permalink
Like a black man’s going to show up in a crowd of rwe’s carrying a gun! You must think we’re all stupid as cons.
==================================
You sir are an idiot and a racist.
Nathaniel
Posted August 20, 2009 at 7:11 pm | Permalink
Phantom,
You mean like this black man?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
———————————-
Thank you Nate.
Notice how the “non-racist” photo tries to cut out as much of the person’s skin as possible….
Yeah LIBs, you are shining examples of race bating.
You use race at every conceivable, disgusting, moment you can.
Well, people are seeing through your lies.
Nathan–
I’m starting to feel sorry for you.
That was the most wacked-out, non-sensical post I’ve seen in months on the WEBlog.
It rivals a Fleettwood post in its vacuous irrelevancy.
As usual, in most discussions on guns, the left brings nothing but insults, fear, and their emotions.
I bring logic, facts, and the truth.
The Left thrives on pushing some race based factor in this, which of course is completely ridiculous.
It only serves as a distraction from the real issue.
Saul’s works were published LIBs, we know your play book.
He’s a black guy in Arizona.
Hell, I’d carry a rifle around too if I were black in Arizona.
CapnAmerica
Posted August 20, 2009 at 7:18 pm | Permalink
Nathan–
I’m starting to feel sorry for you.
That was the most wacked-out, non-sensical post I’ve seen in months on the WEBlog.
=============================================
For an honest approach, Capn’A, I suggest you read Monkeyhawk’s post before you come to judgment.
Anti asks, Obama’s still kickin’ ain’t he?
Your @s$, yes.
CapnAmerica,
You wouldn’t get a point if it was sticking in your rear end.
#
CapnAmerica
Posted August 20, 2009 at 7:20 pm | Permalink
He’s a black guy in Arizona.
Hell, I’d carry a rifle around too if I were black in Arizona.
================================
Why?
Scared of the Mexicans?
#
CapnAmerica
Posted August 20, 2009 at 7:22 pm | Permalink
Anti asks, Obama’s still kickin’ ain’t he?
Your @s$, yes.
===================================
Then he hasn’t tried to take my guns.
As for proudly carrying a gun in public making somebody look like an idiot loser, I offer Nathan.
Someday, he’ll have . . . uh . . . girlfriend to snuggle.
Now he’s got his big powerful gun.
You don’t have to be Freud to figure it out.
“I don’t think the color of the man makes much difference in the matter”
The point was the MSNBC article was titled “White Racists…..Obama”.
And it was a black man carrying the rifle.
CapnAmerica,
Since I am an advocate of CONCEALED carry, it makes your notion that I would “look” like anything simply absurd.
As usual, you offer little more than your pathetic personal insults.
#
#
American_Way
Posted August 20, 2009 at 7:27 pm | Permalink
“I don’t think the color of the man makes much difference in the matter”
The point was the MSNBC article was titled “White Racists…..Obama”.
And it was a black man carrying the rifle.
=============================================
I know.
My point was that race doesn’t equal a certain political belief, like the left seems to think.
Which is racist at the idea’s very foundation.
Be sure to pull out your gun if and when you ever get a job interview, Nathan.
Nothing says sane, stable and competent like a high powered handgun worn on the body at all times . . .
CapnAmerica, did you have something to actually offer to the discussion?
I didn’t think so.
The Capn is being a little beachy tonight isn’t he. :)
#
Regular
Posted August 20, 2009 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
The Capn is being a little beachy tonight isn’t he. :)
===================================
My suggestion is that Capn’A stop taking the brown acid….I think “Wavy Gravy” professed this some 40 some odd years ago.
#
Regular
Posted August 20, 2009 at 7:37 pm | Permalink
The Capn is being a little beachy tonight isn’t he. :)
=========================
It had slipped my mind, beachy….well played.
“My point was that race doesn’t equal a certain political belief, like the left seems to think.”
Good point. And how to the “libs” always know that those carrying guns are “cons”?
Do they think there are no Obama bumper stickers on the cars parked outside the gun shows?
Well,
I gotta go “work”.
I may try the new little wireless laptop when I’m out on the boat later.
Have fun!
Anti taking a laptop out fishing? Doesn’t that sort of defeat the purpose? Wasn’t it you who posted something about you sticking with old traditional things?
Oh well, I’ll be glad to have you blogging w/us.
Oh yeah, before I retire,
Glad to see you Nathaniel.
Good to see you as well. To bad not much has changed with certain posters around here.
“I bring logic, facts, and the truth.”
Uh huh. Your own version of them.
It goes without saying that I have not missed you.
But I enjoy saying it.
BlueJay,
Feel free to offer your “version” of any logic, facts, or truth to counter what I have said here.
Considering the history of presidential assassinations, and the nut cases attempting them, carrying a gun to any political event requires less than intelligence. While legal in some states, it does nothing to further the cause of any sides arguments, and, in fact, shows the limited intelligence of those who find it necessary to carry to such events.
There’s something wrong with people who do carry to political events. Should one of these idiots pull and use one, I can guarantee there will be he11 to pay. My opinion of those who do carry to political events are they are perfect examples of, “You just can’t fix stupid.”
“The point was the MSNBC article was titled “White Racists…..Obama”.
And it was a black man carrying the rifle.”
The copy didn’t match the graphics. The t.v. clip was “clipped.” I’d like to know what preceded the clip on your site. That’s all.
DorisKing,
This is from MSNBC. They are talking about how it was white people carrying the guns and that it had a racial overtone, yet, the person they show carrying the assault rifle was a black man. They only showed you enough video of the man so you never seen he was black.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI
Here is a picture of the same man, where you can see he is a black man:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html
JM Walker,
I would agree with you if they had been trying to carry into the building where Obama was at or were near where Obama would be. If they had been trying to get into the controlled security zone the Secret Service creates.
They were not. Those men were no where actually close enough to the President to do anything if they wanted to.
If they had been, the Secret Service would have stopped them, would have asked them to leave if not disarm them and detain them per federal guidelines.
So, your assertion that they are stupid is simply absurd.
The newsbusters clip has been edited by newsbusters Nathaniel. I suspect they’ve cut out the longer range establishment shot which probably shows that the man is black. Also in the copy, the semi-automatic rifle isn’t mentioned. What is mentioned are guns carried at the waist or ankle.
I want to see the ten seconds of the clip prior to the newsbusters clip.
I wonder if DorisKing is related to DoorKing that used to post here a few years ago. :)
DorisKing,
The clip wasn’t edited. I encourage you to research it on your own though.
Please let us know what you find out though.
DorisKing,
Even if it was edited, what sense does it make that they are talking about white people bringing guns and racial overtones toward a black man as President when they are using footage of a black man with the gun?
Have you asked yourself that question?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21iBGKNZMGM
Because a dozen white men were armed at the meeting.
#
Nathaniel
Posted August 20, 2009 at 8:44 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
I would agree with you if they had been trying to carry into the building where Obama was at or were near where Obama would be. If they had been trying to get into the controlled security zone the Secret Service creates.
They were not. Those men were no where actually close enough to the President to do anything if they wanted to.
If they had been, the Secret Service would have stopped them, would have asked them to leave if not disarm them and detain them per federal guidelines.
So, your assertion that they are stupid is simply absurd.
==============================================
I rest my case
They showed the rifle footage because it was outrageous, and they are in search or ratings. Just like every single television news outlet in the nation showed it.
I’m not saying it’s a good system, but it’s our system.
Here you go Nathan, resolved, case closed. :)
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1482/blackmancarryingriflean.jpg
DorisKing,
Yet one of them was black. Yet the footage they used to make their point was of a black man.
That disproves their very point.
JM Walker,
You never had a case.
You don’t know what their point was because you don’t have the whole clip.
Can’t you see anything but black and white?
DorisKing,
Yes I do. Even so, they are clearly talking about how this was white people bringing guns and how it had racial overtones because there was a black man as President…while the footage they were using was of a black man with guns.
I have given you the video from two sources now including an article from CNN with the photo.
You keep claiming I don’t have the whole clip, so where is your evidence? Where is your proof?
DorisKing,
MSNBC were the ones making it a racial issue, when it wasn’t and proven so by the very footage they were using. I am just pointing that out.
If one studies the video closely, they’ll see at the begining of the video, a portion of a man with a plaid shirt standing behing the man with the rifle.
Later on in the video, the plaid shirt guy turns out to be an interviewer with a microphone with a windshield on it.
No doubt in my mind, the video was deliberately cropped to mislead.
You havn’t see the footage, nor heard the commentary Nathaniel.
DorisKing,
Yes I have. I just showed it to you.
A couple of things, first I heard the day after the protest that the one carrying the AR was a Black man. It did strike me odd that every time the part was showed with the AR it just kept repeating the close in image of the rifle and though they showed everyone else with a wide shot. They never did show the wide shot of the one holding the rifle?
Gun rights is not solely a White issue. It did take a conscious choice to not show that the one with the rifle is Black. A conscious choice to paint the protesters as being angry White men alone. Bad on you MSNBC!
Second LOL and risking seeming more a nut, I too have seen black helicopters. No men in black but the black helicopters do fly.
#
Nathaniel
Posted August 20, 2009 at 9:13 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
You never had a case.
===============================================
Of course not Nathan: he who has the gun makes the rules, right? Especially at political events. After all, guns don’t kill people; people carrying guns kill people. You’re definitely a credit to your party. I’m so glad I dumped it.
Steely Dan wrote a song called “With a Gun.” Lyrics include:
Just give fair warning any time you come around
With a gun.
That applies to you in spades.
Smart black man, if you’re going into a crowd of White RWE’s that are packing pistols, better be carring a semi-auto rifle, might get mistook for Obama!
JM Walker,
What do any of your comments have to do wtih the discussion at hand? Seems like you are more interested in making this about me rather than presenting any kind of actual argument on the subject.
Yes, but what happened before? The clip begins in mid-sentence. Also, other material on the MSNBC site cleary shows the man is black.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457652/ns/politics-white_house
I agree that using the footage to relate to rascism is shoddy journalism if that is what MSNBC did, but since the footage and copy preceding the clip shown by Newsbusters is neither shown nor heard, we’ll never know. Other MSNBC clips on the MSNBC site cleary show white men carrying weapons at the same event. Furthermore, CNN reported there was more than one other person carried an assault rifles that day at that event. Good night.
Phantom,
So which is it?
First you claim that a black man wouldn’t show up carrying a gun and now you praise one for doing so.
#
Nathaniel
Posted August 20, 2009 at 10:25 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
What do any of your comments have to do wtih the discussion at hand? Seems like you are more interested in making this about me rather than presenting any kind of actual argument on the subject.
=============================================
I don’t recall seeing anyone else commenting on what I wrote. My post was dead on point: I think anyone, other than security, who finds the need to carry a firearm to a political event the antithesis of what this country stands for. I find anyone who finds the need to carry a firearm to a political event, other than security, as being a totally negative addition to that political event. You fit the bill, ergo, I for one, want nothing to do with either you, or the people you represent. As I said, that’s my opinion. If you find it necessary to carry, either inside or outside a political event, I am not interested in your opinion. Your argument for doing so is pointless.
Jim, Jim, Jim Oh Jim, just how old are you?
Am I mistaken that you are old enough to actually remember that far back to the 90’s and the whole AWB thing?
Just where were the lies about assault weapons?
When I write it is well spaced on my word processor program I use to write it.
I do notice it get messed up when I paste it to the comment space.
But then is it not readable to you?
In the future and just for you I will try to get it back to a more reasonable spacing.
As to being long it is a failing of mine, I just often feel its too important to make a catch phrase or snappy witticism about a subject.
Perhaps I think too deeply about what I consider as important.
What I am arguing is not that Obama won’t ban guns, I argue that if there is concern it should be based on real actions not on paranoid fears.
I use to jokingly say that Clinton did not want to ban guns. That he just wanted to make it where if your last name started with a letter of the Alphabet you could not own a firearm.
The paranoia was so deep in the nineties that some actually thought I was stating a fact.
That is the problem, so much of it is the fear that by the time any real attempt to disarm the people is realized it would be too late.
So the reaction becomes more proactive based on hearsay and looking for hidden meanings.
Jumping at every bump in the night and seeing it as the BATF coming in.
First of all, this started with people open carrying, now we are talking about concealed carry. These are completely different. As of now Nebraska does not recognize any other states issued Concealed carry license. LB430 will change that this Sept.
The original article states “Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. ” The same poeple who are up in arms about citizens legally carrying weapons had no problems with the Black Panthers hanging around outside elections in Philly last November with one of them holding a night stick. Legal is legal. Get over it.
In case anyone is interested, according to the FBI yearly report of 1987.
what was classified as “assault weapon” was used in less then 1 percent of all crimes using a firearm.
I doubt that percentage has changed a great deal since. I have not seen a FBI yearly report since getting out of law enforcement.
The favorite weapons of criminals were handguns and Shotguns. As I was told once, “I prefer a sawed off shotgun over a machine gun.
A sawed off Shotgun is like a American express card, easy to carry and recognized worldwide”.
And in an interview today with TPMmuckraker, Hancock said he still believes the Viper Militia case was “manufactured” by the same government that manufactured
Waco_Siege and lied to its people about 9/11
a rightwing talk show host far to the deep right of even Sean Hannity, was–and remains–a defender of the Viper Militia movement, many of whose members were arrested and convicted on weapons’ charges in the 1990s. He is harshly critical of government responses to incidents like Waco, and is reputed to have been [I've seen conflicting reports on this] the man who designed the Ron Paul R3VOLution logo for last year’s viral presidential campaign.
“http://www.ernesthancock.com/” and the best thing I can say is that aside from being a 9/11 truther, he is also an opponent of corporate welfare, neocon foreign policy, and the Patriot Act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GiXzpfGhA
An interview with the AR carrier.
All I can say is that any jackass who shows up with a gun at an event attended by the President deserves to get his head blown off and probably will. The Secret Service takes a pretty dim view of that kind of idiocy!
Jed,
But that is not what happened. Law abiding people with guns did show up at an event attended by the President and they didn’t get shot and didn’t cause any problems.
There was no idiocy at all.
“All I can say is that any jackass who shows up with a gun at an event attended by the President deserves to get his head blown off and probably will. The Secret Service takes a pretty dim view of that kind of idiocy!”–Jed
There was plenty of law enforcement around Jed….nothing happened.
Relax, you are simply revealing how unstable you consider yourself to be with firearms.
Jed,
I already pointed this out earlier.
They were not at the actual event. They were standing outside, out of the security zone established by the Secret Service.
No laws were broken, nothing happened.
As usual, it is those anti-gun people on the left making a big deal out of nothing.
JM Walker,
That is fine. Call it your opinion all you want to. It doesn’t make it logical or rational though.
Carrying a gun doesn’t cause you any harm and it doesn’t negate someones argument on any particular subject either.
Is there something magical about a “political event” that someone shouldn’t have a gun there? Or do you just not agree that someone should carry a gun anywhere at all?
Nathaniel,
Is there something about plain English you have a problem understanding? I made my opinion as clear as I could. I can’t help you understand it anymore. Carrying a gun to a political event is just plain stupid.
But your right again: I can’t remember a political event where there wasn’t an all out gun war that security was able to handle, so they sure need yours to back them up. Maybe you can pick up a badge at one of those WalMart pick-up games in the entrance. I’m sure it’ll work for you.
Here’s one of your idiots, though not at a political event, but an idiot just the same:
“The Republican Party chairman of Boise County in Idaho was arrested Thursday for aggravated assault after he pulled a gun on a man whose house he was photographing.
Charles McAffee, 33, was among Idaho’s anti-tax tea-party activists, and is a member of the Idaho Republican Party Central Committee. He was arrested after pulling a handgun on a homeowner whose mortgage his employer sought to photograph for being delinquent. His employer is a contractor for Wells Fargo.”
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/08/idaho-gop-leader-tea-party-arrested/
JM Walker,
I understand that you think carrying a gun to a political event is stupid.
What part of such an opinion not being rational or logical don’t you understand?
You seem to have little problem expressing your opinion, it is the explaining it or arguing for it part that you don’t seem to grasp.
Sure, that guy was not very bright. I am not sure what that has to do with this discussion or you supporting your opinion.
“Nathaniel” –
Can you provide me with a link to your post-combat psychological evaluation taken after your one hitch in Iraq?
I have to agree with all the right wing nuts out there, We need to be able to carry Concealed and openly carry Fire Arms to protect us from who or what ever may be out there. But that is not my main reason for supporting this. I feel and I am sure that you will agree, that we spend way too much money on training of Law Enforcement Officers. This has the possibility of saving millions of State and federal Tax dollars. No more costly psychological evaluations to determine if the candidate has the mental qualifications to perform the job. As long as they have not been committed to a mental hospital, what’s the problem? No more the requirement to spend hours qualifying and requalifying on the proficiency course. Why would you need to show that you could handle a firearm in the first place? All that is really needed is to pass the eight-hour safety course and they should be good for the rest of their career or life, which ever ends first. If they find themselves in a bad situation all they have to do is shoot first and after the smoke clears, claim that their lives were in danger. This would also allow us to fill every vacant law enforcement position with little expense to tax payers. Training a police officer is very expensive and with this it only takes eight hours and $150.00.
“Nathaniel” –
Still no link?
Nathan, explaining anything to you appears to equal a one sided conversation with a dining room table, with you being the table. Maybe this will help:
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/20/barney-frank-wont-argue-with-dining-room-table-so-colbert-does/
Nathananiel-
I am probably twice your age. I served in the military during the days of Viet Nam, My father served in WW2, My brother, and my son, have both served in Iraq. I have gone to more memorial services than I ever care to go to again. All that being said.
Openly carrying a gun to a political event, with crowds of strangers, maybe be legal, maybe be with your rights, but is just plain stupid. WHy do I say that? For one reason, it heightens the stress of those around you. Why? Because they have no idea who you are, if you are a good guy or a bad guy, to keep it simple. Causing unnecessary stress on the general population just because you can is not only stupid, but selfish. Second, because you are openly carrying a gun, there will be those responsible for security watching you much closer. If you have an itch, and unlimber the gun from across your body to scratch it, do you think it will bode well? THere is a time and place for all things. This was not one, and will likely result in calls to ratchet down even further on the freedoms you enjoy, which is also stupid. All in all, selfish and stupid.
“littlejohn” nails “Nathaniel” with –
“…selfish and stupid.”
It’s also legal to pick your nose and your ass hole ’til you bleed from both ends.
Doesn’t make it a good idea.
For 80 years power freaks and pantschitters in government and in the media have been trying to demonize the “gun”. They villified and marginalized it. “MORE GUNS EQUALS MORE CRIME” they screamed.
In large urban centers they were largely successful. In certain segments of society they were very successful.
Twenty years ago the tide reversed. People realized that crime was not reduced by increased gun regulation. They realized that the police couldnt protect them, and by word of the courts, had no legal obligation to protect them. Concealed carry laws spread. And the pantschitters screamed about “blood in the street” and the power freaks screamed about “vigilante justice”. And time proved them to be liars and fools.
The open carriers at the political protests were making a political statement as well as a social statement. They took a huge risk in the mission of re-normalizing the “gun”. And they were successful. The pantschitters screamed and flopped about in a spittle flecked rage. And the people saw again how full of schiitte they are.
And the “gun” is seen a little more for what it is. A tool who’s capacity for good or evil is determined solely by those who bear it.
“And the “gun” is seen a little more for what it is. A tool who’s capacity for good or evil is determined solely by those who bear it.
That is exactly all it is, a tool. I agree.
“And they were successful. The pantschitters screamed and flopped about in a spittle flecked rage. And the people saw again how full of schiitte they are.”
sorry, you are wrong. The people only saw how far stupid some will go to prove their point.
Heckler, I could care less if you walk around with a full load AR15, six bandoleers and fourteen automatics. Carrying at a political event is just plain stupid. If that needs to be explained, you’re too stupid to understand it.
Nathan,
“Sure, that guy was not very bright. I am not sure what that has to do with this discussion or you supporting your opinion.”
It has everything to do with it. Stupid is bad enough for a member of RPCC but adding guns to stupid is a seriously aggravating factor. As I’ve said before, I’m not anti-gun; I’m against stupid and/or insane yahoos having guns, and of course I find myself trying to explain that to one right now! That’s a lost cause if I ever saw one.
JM
And I think that your position is just plain stupid.
Aint the First Amendment great?
“The open carriers at the political protests were making a political statement as well as a social statement. ”
Well here’s what I heard.
“I’m crazy and potentially dangerous! There can be no meaningful discussion with me!”
It’s a sad day when you have to carry a gun to prove you are a real man and not some wimpy idiot trying to prove a point.
Littlejon,
So, the issue for you has more to do with the gun being visable and how it distrubs others?
Would you be ok if people were carrying concealed instead?
If there is as much security at these events as you guys keep claiming there is, then why would you be so “stressed” or afraid of someone carrying a gun there?
Seems to me that there were no problems at any of these events.
You claim that people will be stressed, that security will be stressed, and that it itimidates people.
Yet, at every location there has been open carry the people still came, they still had there meetings, and there was no problem with security.
The simple fact is that your alleged fears are simply unfounded and PROVEN wrong.
“There can be no meaningful discussion”
Again, proven wrong.
At all of these events where someone was open carrying someone was interviewed or talked to by the media.
How can you say no meaningful discussion can be had when the very people you accuse were having meaningful discussion?
Once again, this is the same old anti-gun rhetoric which is simply not based on reality.
It’s too hot in Arizona to conceal and carry.
Nathan,
Only up to the point where they stay concealed. Of course a weapon isn’t much use if you can’t wave it around and/or shoot somebody, which is hard to do while it remains concealed. You can’t deter anyone with something they don’t know you have. And if, like you say, you aren’t intending to blow someone’s head off, why carry it at all? Are you really that insecure? A blanket or psychiatrist might be more effective and a whole lot safer for everyone around you!
Nathan,
My last post was in reference to this one of yours:
“Would you be ok if people were carrying concealed instead?”
The simple fact is that your alleged fears are simply unfounded and PROVEN wrong
That makes me feel safe! Just how safe would you feel standing next to somebody, which you know nothing about, carrying an assault rifle? Just think, that person could be me! Now how safe do you feel?
JM Walker,
You don’t want a discussion. All you do is say that what you don’t like is stupid and anyone that disagrees is stupid.
JM WALKER: “Carrying at a political event is just plain stupid. If that needs to be explained, you’re too stupid to understand it.”
The only reason you feel like you are talking to a table is because you refuse to listen to anything anyone has to say.
Grayfox,
“It’s a sad day when you have to carry a gun to prove you are a real man and not some wimpy idiot trying to prove a point.”
I think it was our old friend Sigmund Freud who pointed out “Der caliber of der veapon is inversely proportionate to der size of der schnitzel.”
Grayfoxusaf,
At any moment at any part of your day nearly anywhere you are at there could be someone near you or next to you with a gun and you just don’t know.
Does that make you feel better or worse than seeing someone next to you with one in the open?
Seriously, the person who is going to hurt you or someone else isn’t the one advertising that they have a gun. It will be the person who isn’t.
And to answer your question, I would probably want to have a conversation with someone standing next to me with an Assault rifle. Ask them where they got it, how they like it, and make small talk with them.
I would feel perfectly safe.
Nathan,
“The only reason you feel like you are talking to a table is because you refuse to listen to anything anyone has to say.”
I don’t know about yours, but my dining room table hasn’t had anything new or intelligent to say for a long time. Neither have you.
Jed,
Time to fall back on the old tactic from the left here hey? Just make fun of and question the manhood of someone who supports concealed carry?
Typical. When you can’t put forth any kind of rational argument, you always have that tired old crap to pull out.
And people carry concealed primarily to protect themselves, their loved ones, or others from harm. Not to prepare to blow someones head off.
But yes, if someone does try to kill me or someone else, I will shoot to stop the threat.
The coward Bush outlawed umbrellas at his rallies.
Even when it was raining.
CapnAmerica,
The men who were open carrying were not in the Security Zone.
Jed
Posted August 21, 2009 at 1:34 am | Permalink
All I can say is that any jackass who shows up with a gun at an event attended by the President deserves to get his head blown off and probably will. The Secret Service takes a pretty dim view of that kind of idiocy!
———————————
Yup, from the Brady Gun-Ban haters club – if you carry a gun legally, you deserve to die.
If you think you have Freedom even within the law, then you are wrong.
Nathaniel
“Posted August 21, 2009 at 3:50 pm | Permalink
“Littlejon,
So, the issue for you has more to do with the gun being visable and how it distrubs others?
Would you be ok if people were carrying concealed instead”
”
Actually, yes I would
Nathan,
I’ve had conversations with people carrying rifles whose breath reeked of booze from 10ft away and were being quite confrontational about my asking them not to shoot near my house and children. They didn’t make me feel particularly comfortable. If I’d had a weapon, I could have simply shot them and answered questions later. I didn’t have a weapon, so I coerced them into leaving. They could have been your hunting buddies who are still alive because I wasn’t armed.
Jed
Posted August 21, 2009 at 4:40 pm | Permalink
Nathan,
I’ve had conversations with people carrying rifles whose breath reeked of booze from 10ft away and were being quite confrontational about my asking them not to shoot near my house and children.
—————–
Not a very bright move on your part, confronting an armed stranger, while you are unarmed. Were you on your land or not?
That’s a situation for the police or the Sheriff, if someone is armed and truly endangering your person and/or property.
In 30+ years of hunting/shooting, I have never been with anyone who was drinking before or during hunting/shooting.
Afterward, of course, but not before or during.
There’s always a bad apple in the bunch though I’ve not encountered one yet.
Jimbo,
As I’ve explained before, and apparently have to repeat ten times before you’ll retain it, I’m not anti-gun, I’m anti-stupid. Carrying legally doesn’t mean carrying intelligently. If you’re carrying a gun, even legally, where you should know damn well it’s going to cause trouble, either you want trouble or you’re too stupid to care. Either way, you have no complaint if come home in a bag!
Jed,
How does that have anything to do with what we are talking about now?
The men in question were not drinking, had not been drinking, and were not drunk. No one here is advocating that people carry guns and be drunk either.
So what is your point?
Next time call the police.
Jed
Posted August 21, 2009 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
Either way, you have no complaint if come home in a bag!
=================
Jed’s so full of hate, he’s anxious to kill.
Jed,
For a large chunk of liberals and those on the left, it will always cause trouble for them if someone is carrying a gun.
Do you expect someone to never carry concealed or open carry at all then? Simply because it will cause “trouble” with the anti-gun crowd?
Jimbo,
“In 30+ years of hunting/shooting, I have never been with anyone who was drinking before or during hunting/shooting.”
I used to live in hunting country. I encountered drunk hunters almost every week during hunting season who couldn’t begin to comprehend that if you shoot a squirrel with a 30-06 or 7.62, the bullet doesn’t stop at the squirrel, but continues right through my house. I got fairly good at patching bullet holes in my walls. It’s a wonder my kids survived!
Jed,
You expect us to believe that you have had your house shot by drunk hunters, not once, but so many times that you had to get good at patching the holes?
Jimbo,
“Jed’s so full of hate, he’s anxious to kill.”
Maybe I am and maybe I’m not. Don’t be too anxious to test it. You might be wrong.
Nathan,
“You expect us to believe that you have had your house shot by drunk hunters, not once, but so many times that you had to get good at patching the holes?”
Apparently I get good at things faster than you do.
Well, let’s not forget that Jed is your general uniformed city slicker, that wouldn’t know how to plant a goat head if his ignorant ass depended on it!
I say this, realizing Jed is 2837 years old and hasn’t learned a damn thing.
#
Nathaniel
Posted August 21, 2009 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
Jed,
You expect us to believe that you have had your house shot by drunk hunters, not once, but so many times that you had to get good at patching the holes?
=====================================
Nate,
You have missed many a story time from Jed…
The pantschitters continue with debate about something that did not happen.
NO ONE took an openly carried weapon to an event that was attended by the President.
Get over it.
…and I assure you there were MANY concealed weapons present at the event attended by the President.
“Nathaniel
Posted August 21, 2009 at 4:20 pm” –
“…the person who is going to hurt you or someone else isn’t the one advertising that they have a gun. It will be the person who isn’t.”
That comment’s gonna haunt you, boy.
And to answer your question, I would probably want to have a conversation with someone standing next to me with an Assault rifle. Ask them where they got it, how they like it, and make small talk with them.
I would feel perfectly safe.
You are not very smart because I have no use for people like yoursrlf.
Way to go RAMBO jed, get out there and find all of the bad people. By the way, it was the party of the right that introduced the scare tactics not the left. Be careful the boogyman will get you.
Jed’s so full of hate, he’s anxious to kill.”
Maybe I am and maybe I’m not. Don’t be too anxious to test it. You might be wrong.
The same goes for me, you never know where I might show up.
Jimbo,
“In 30+ years of hunting/shooting, I have never been with anyone who was drinking before or during hunting/shooting.”
What planet are you from? Maybe it was because you never left your back yard. Because of the drinking and hunting, I gave it up, hunting not drinking. I still carry a gun, thats only because I am looking for right wing idiots.
“JimJohnson” claims –
“In 30+ years of hunting/shooting, I have never been with anyone who was drinking before or during hunting/shooting.”
You’ve obviously never gone hunting with Dick Cheney.
shoot a squirrel with a 30-06
============================================
I call shenanigans on that one.
#
Nathaniel
Posted August 21, 2009 at 4:15 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
You don’t want a discussion. All you do is say that what you don’t like is stupid and anyone that disagrees is stupid.
JM WALKER: “Carrying at a political event is just plain stupid. If that needs to be explained, you’re too stupid to understand it.”
The only reason you feel like you are talking to a table is because you refuse to listen to anything anyone has to say.
==============================================
Listen dude, I explained my position in my first post on this thread. If redundancy is something you require in order to understand my position, then go back and reread it a couple dozen times. Obviously, if you can’t understand it, then my opinion that you are stupid stands firm.
Let me make myself perfectly clear: If you are so paranoid, afraid, or otherwise (and I use this word loosely) ‘think’ you will need a firearm at a political event, then attempting to explain to you how stupid that is, is akin to talking to a table. So how many chairs surround you anyway?
I’m with grayfoxusaf on this one. I used to enjoy pheasant hunting, but gave it up because of too many morons out there drinking and hunting. Getting a load of 6 shot dropping on your head tends to make one rethink hunting altogether.
“Is there something magical about a “political event” that someone shouldn’t have a gun there?” [Nathan]
Gosh, Nathan, that comment means you support John Hinkley’s right to have a gun the day he shot Reagan.. And “Squeaky” Fromm had a legitimate reason to carry a gun when she attempted to shoot Gerald Ford at that political event?? And nobody should have been upset that Sirhan Sirhan had a gun when he killed Bobby Kennedy….
I think these are reasons your logic is somewhat flawed….
Chas,
I have pointed out several times now about how there is a Security zone established around the President where guns are not allowed.
All my arguments have been in defense of open carry outside of the security zone and to point out that those who were open carrying were doing so outside of the security zone.
There is nothing flawed with my logic at all.
JM Walker,
Yes, you did explain your opinion in your first post. Then I pointed out how all your reasons were flawed and then you fell back on your opinion routine and how anyone who disagreed was stupid…
I understand. You are unable to present a logical or rational argument and the only thing you can do is call people stupid.
But don’t worry, I wasn’t really expecting much from you.
And back once more to the question of the thread, I feel the best comment made so far should be highlighted again.
GMC70: “No. The mere presence of a gun no more threatens violence than the presence of a spoon threatens obeisity.”
Only to those who are crazy would feel toting a gun to a presidential event wouldn’t seem threatening.
The guy meant to be threatening. Carrying a gun, wearing a shirt with Tim McVeigh’s saying, and protesting the president. He should have been arrested. Bush rallies people got arrested just for wearing tee shirts with sayings they didn’t like.
And the one guy had the gun slung over his shoulder. Any person in the crowd could have come up and yanked it away from him. This is why you gun nuts are friggin idiots.
The fact that you fail to acknowledge just how dangerous this is, is amazing.
Patriot my foot.
“…the person who is going to hurt you or someone else isn’t the one advertising that they have a gun. It will be the person who isn’t.”
That would be “Nathaniel.”
#
Nathaniel
Posted August 22, 2009 at 12:59 am | Permalink
JM Walker,
Yes, you did explain your opinion in your first post. Then I pointed out how all your reasons were flawed and then you fell back on your opinion routine and how anyone who disagreed was stupid…
I understand. You are unable to present a logical or rational argument and the only thing you can do is call people stupid.
But don’t worry, I wasn’t really expecting much from you.
================================================
In other words, all those chairs surrounding you are carrying, right?
Nathan, let me make this clear again: I stated ‘taking a firearm to any political event’ in my original post. I never stated whether inside or outside. You, on the other hand, tried to make it sound as if I was referring to inside events, which was not the case. Ergo, your argument that I deviated from my original argument is false. As I said, you should go back and reread the original post many times, and it might sink through that biased head that your whole argument, when taken into the consideration of my original post, is flat out wrong.
Maybe you should just shoot them darn chairs surrounding you: they make more sense.
JM Wlaker,
Actually, I made reference to 3 distinct things:
1. Inside the building
2. Near the president
3. Inside the security zone
I didn’t try to make your argument sound like anything at all. My comments in response to yours matter not as to your being vague and not specifically saying inside or outside.
However, since you want to play this game of ambiguity now, please feel free to clarify what it was exactly that you meant?
Or perhaps, you could actually respond to the comments I made instead of coming up with some convoluted response which doesn’t even address my comments?
Political Mama,
Seem threatening? Who cares!
It has already been demonstrated by those of you on the left that it doesn’t matter where, when, or why someone has a gun you feel threatened.
What kind of circular argument is it then to say that we shouldn’t carry guns because it “seems” threatening to those on the left?
How do you know that the guy meant to be threatening? I am curious as to your keen insight into the motivations of others you don’t even know.
You say he should have been arrested. For what?
You can’t just yank a gun away from someone either. Even so, someone could try to run up and yank a gun away from a police officer to.
Should they all be disarmed as well?
“Nathaniel” –
Squeaky Fromme just got out of a 34-year jail hitch for carrying an unloaded gun near a President of the United States.
And I remember how you and the NRA fought so long and hard to get her out of jail for doing just what you advocate.
Oh wait….
Fromme was convicted in 1975 of pointing a gun at then-President Gerald Ford in Sacramento, California. Secret Service agents prevented her from firing, but the gun was later found to have no bullet in the chamber, although it contained a clip of ammunition.
————
That’s really not quite the same thing, Monkey, as “carrying an unloaded gun near a President of the United States”.
#
Nathaniel
Posted August 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm | Permalink
JM Wlaker,
Actually, I made reference to 3 distinct things:
1. Inside the building
2. Near the president
3. Inside the security zone
I didn’t try to make your argument sound like anything at all. My comments in response to yours matter not as to your being vague and not specifically saying inside or outside.
However, since you want to play this game of ambiguity now, please feel free to clarify what it was exactly that you meant?
Or perhaps, you could actually respond to the comments I made instead of coming up with some convoluted response which doesn’t even address my comments?
==============================================
What about “TO A POLITICAL EVENT” do you not understand? My contention, ANYONE, OTHER THAN SECURITY, WHO BRINGS A FIREARM TO A POLITICAL EVENT IS STUPID, stands as is. That you’re attempting to make something different out of it only supports my contention that the chairs surrounding you offer way more sense than you do. I made no distinction, because I don’t see one, and that is my contention.
Here, Nathan, let me make it as clear as I can: If for any reason you bring a firearm to a political event, whether inside, outside or your so-called security zone, you are stupid. Normal thinking individuals wouldn’t need that explanation as my first post made that perfectly clear. Are you happy now? Or are you going to freak out again.
It’s no wonder so many Republicans think there will be death panels, forced abortions, illegals in every waiting room and 5000 year old earth theories. Just plain stupid. Don’t bother replying, because I’m done with talking to the table. Please take yourself off the voting rolls as you are way to dumb to vote.
Outlander,
Facts don’t matter to those like MonkeyHawk.
JM Walker,
When did I freak out a first time? You are the one going off on some rant, not me.
You made more comments than you choose to highlight here, but oh well, I will stick with what you want to go with now.
Your so called argument once again is nothing more than you think something is stupid and anyone who disagrees is stupid.
As I pointed out before, such a statement only proves that you have no interest in any real discussion based on logic or the facts.
#
Nathaniel
Posted August 22, 2009 at 5:19 pm | Permalink
JM Walker,
When did I freak out a first time? You are the one going off on some rant, not me.
You made more comments than you choose to highlight here, but oh well, I will stick with what you want to go with now.
Your so called argument once again is nothing more than you think something is stupid and anyone who disagrees is stupid.
As I pointed out before, such a statement only proves that you have no interest in any real discussion based on logic or the facts.
=================================================
Again, you prove your ignorance. You are the only one who objected to my first post, and you are the only one who has answered any of my posts (except for one guy, who stated something or other ridiculous). You act like this whole thing was directed at you and you alone. That’s called paranoia in anyone’s book. You jumped in with both feet, trying to justify an unjustifiable (in my opinion, which I stated more than once) position.
You can’t seem to understand that my position on the subject disallows arguments for carrying firearms to political events, for the simple reason I can find no reason to justify carrying a firearm to a political event. I see little difference between jumping off a cliff and carrying a firearm to a political event. Both are stupid.
That you seem to be able to justify, for any reason, carrying a firearm to such an event just proves my point. But I seriously doubt you are capable of seeing my point because of your biased nature. If you carry a firearm to a political event, there is no room for discussion of any kind because I don’t recognize you as an intelligent human being. You are, in fact, exactly what this country does not stand for.
Go talk to your chairs. If you can’t handle my position, well, go jump off that cliff. I could really care less.
JM Walker,
It appears as if you continue to devolve further and further away from any kind of rational argument the more you try.
Once again, sorting through your post reveals your same illogical stance that:
Guns at political events = stupid, because I say so. If you disagree you are stupid.
Sorry, but that is not an argument based on any kind of well thought out or rational reasoning.
Sure, it is your opinion, but that doesn’t make it a very good one.
And as usual, with nearly every other thread on guns, the left has nothing.
#
Nathaniel
Posted August 22, 2009 at 9:59 pm | Permalink
And as usual, with nearly every other thread on guns, the left has nothing.
==============================================
Now who’s ranting?
snicker
JM Walker,
Well, that has to be shortest “rant” in history…
Perhaps with all this time you have, you might actually spend some of it coming up with a logical, well thought out argument?
“Nathaniel” –
What seems patently illogical is your obsession with guns.
It’s like a fetish with you.
MonkeyHawk,
Kind of like how you are obsessed with me?
Right, “Nathaniel” –
That must be it.
Don’t you have some guns to clean? Don’t want to let that jism dry and clog up the works.
LOL… and you prove my point.
MonkeyHawk-
I htink I would refrain from using the Squeaky Fromme reference. It really is not applicable. Legally carrying a gun outside the security zone, while in my opinion not wise, is far different than what Squeaky did. Since she actually had a loaded gun inside the security zone, and actually pointed it at the President. In my mind, she was lucky to have survived the incident. In addition, she was eligible from payroll many years ago, but did not request it.
“littlejohn” comes to the defense of the Manson Family –
“…she was eligible from payroll many years ago….”
‘Fess up. You studied history with “Boxlock20,” didn’t you?
Sorry, shouldhave been parole, and all you have to do is look it up, She weas eligible for parole in 1985. From CNN
“Fromme became eligible for parole in 1985, Ponce said. According to reports, she for years waived her right to a parole hearing. The Bureau of Prisons would not say whether she changed her mind and requested a hearing, but the U.S. Parole Commission’s Web site says that everyone who wishes to be considered for parole, except those committed under juvenile delinquency procedures, must complete a parole application.”
And I didn;t come to the defense of anyone. Just pointed out the inherent problem with you using her as an example
Squeaky probably was waiting for Wayne LaPierre to step up for her 2nd Amendment rights.
What part of “…shall not be infringed” do you guys not understand?
MonkeyHawk,
So, did you have anything relevant to the discussion you would like to add or just your usual off topic absurdities and attempts to make things personal?
Monkeyhawk
Posted August 22, 2009 at 11:22 pm | Permalink
Squeaky probably was waiting for Wayne LaPierre to step up for her 2nd Amendment rights.
What part of “…shall not be infringed” do you guys not understand?”
well, that certainly was an adult response
It doesn;t matter. Monkeyhawk, you have a good nght, whatever youi perceive that to be. Me, I;m going to bed. Next time you want to chastise my understanding of history, you go right ahead.
“Nathaniel” and “littlejohn” apparently are cool with infringing” 2nd Amendment rights.
Like that old, “Would you boink me for a million dollars” joke, now we know what you are; we’re just negotiating.
“littlejohn” –
“chastise?!”
I merely mentioned “Boxlock20’s” grasp of history.
Next time you want to chastise “Boxlock20’s” understanding of history, go right ahead.
Nathan, seriously dude. I don’t know what he was thinking any more than I knew it was a freakshow Operation Rescue/AOG reich wing christian who assassinated Dr Tiller the moment I heard it happened. If I remember correctly, the right cons here kept saying ‘oh no it isn’t one of us’….
Some things are just so obvious there really isn’t much to interpret.
“Political_mama” –
Don’t expect “Nathaniel” to respond.
He’s mostly busy with a lubricant and some towels or Kleenex to sop up the goo as his right hand rubs and rubs and rubs his… “gun.”
MonkeyHawk,
I see you have not lost your touch when it comes to being one of the most rude and vulgar posters here.
Political_Mama,
The guy who killed Dr Tiller wasn’t “one of us” and I have no idea what that has to do with this thread or what your point is either.
This is all you liberals got?