# Protesters Carrying Rifle Outside Obama Rally



## Immanuel (Aug 17, 2009)

> PHOENIX &#8211; About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday &#8212; the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> 
> Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
> 
> Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.





> "When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance," Solop said. "It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication."



Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest - Yahoo! News

I am no fan of the President, but this is disturbing to me.  The message is clear and quite frankly, I think inappropriate.  Not to mention just plain stupid.  Notice that at least one of the guys wouldn't identify himself.

Immie


----------



## Xenophon (Aug 17, 2009)

Sounds like a bunch of idiots to me.


----------



## xotoxi (Aug 17, 2009)

You should temporarily lose your right to bear arms if you are near the President.

When the President is no longer in your vicinity, you can carry on shooting Old Milwaukee cans off your fence post until the cows come home.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> >
> > Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
> >
> ...



At least it wasn't concealed. I once attended a protest, when I actually thought the majority of liberals practiced what they preached, which I do believe in, and too many of them had concealed weapons of all sorts, I was lucky, a cop I know pulled me out before the shit really hit the fan.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 17, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Sounds like a bunch of idiots to me.


why, where is it a law you cant carry them?

they also shouldnt be complaining when the secret service is all up their ass checking them out


----------



## Emma (Aug 17, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> I am no fan of the President, but this is disturbing to me.  The message is clear and quite frankly, I think inappropriate.  Not to mention just plain stupid.  Notice that at least one of the guys wouldn't identify himself.
> 
> Immie



Do those idiots really think such a stupid stunt is going to help their cause? Morons.


----------



## Xenophon (Aug 17, 2009)

Gotta remmeber ta bring ma shooin iron next time!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAH!


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like a bunch of idiots to me.
> ...



It's perfectly legal.

And stupid.

And counterproductive.

The latter two being MO of course.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 17, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Gotta remmeber ta bring ma shooin iron next time!
> 
> YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAH!



lol ... 

I was just thinking, "You what will calm these people down?  Alcohol."


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 17, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


well, i sure wouldnt want the secret service giving me a public rectal exam
LOL


----------



## Emma (Aug 17, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like a bunch of idiots to me.
> ...



And they best not so much as _twitch_.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 17, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


Secret service has sharpshooters
i really dont think i'd want to be in their crosshairs


----------



## Agnapostate (Aug 18, 2009)

It's not as though they posed any significant threat, because the Service would have been ridiculously paranoid if they actually had. This local rangemaster that I talk to never tires of telling the story of the time that Reagan and his wife showed up and agents forced everyone to disarm (basic precaution, obviously) and extensively checked out all weapons even beyond that.


----------



## Chris (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> >
> > Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
> >
> ...



The lunatic fringe of the right wing is getting more and more extreme...fed by the ravings of Beck, Hannity, and FoxNews

Sooner or later there will be violence.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > > PHOENIX &#8211; About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday &#8212; the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> ...



It appears you don't have a clue what the political right and political left actually is. You keep using "right wing" wrongly.  If you could educate yourself, instead of spouting incorrect talking points for the sake of getting some partisan hack rep, the integrity of your posting and intellect would increase.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 18, 2009)

They had a right to carry arms. They broke no laws.  I don't see what the problem is.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


your advice is way too late
he is already known as nothing but a partisan hack


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> ...



Isn't it uncomfortable having Obama's dick up your ass?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> They had a right to carry arms. They broke no laws.  I don't see what the problem is.


while they broke no laws. it wasnt the smartest thing to do


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


see, now i thought he had his head up Obamas ass


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Chrissy would find a way to accomplish both simultaneously. He has the audacity of hope.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > They had a right to carry arms. They broke no laws.  I don't see what the problem is.
> ...



Why? So what if the Secret Service investigates. Why allow yourself to be intimidated by the government?


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


I have noticed that about his posting.  That explains the lack of using the right hemisphere of the brain. Can't do that or he might find himself agreeing with something a Republican said, even if it didn't involve politics. No creativity.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > BasicGreatGuy said:
> ...


thats what i said
but they better not complain


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Why are you complaining that it wasn't the smart thing to do though? Exercising your constitutional rights in a lawful and respectful manner is a good thing to do. I don't understand the negative responses in the thread, from those who aren't hacks.  If the government doesn't like it, they can go pound sand.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 18, 2009)

> Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.
> 
> "In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."





> Arizona is an "open-carry" state, which means anyone legally allowed to have a firearm can carry it in public as long as it's visible.



'Nough said.


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> >
> > Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
> >
> ...



Disturbing when a law abiding citizen carries a weapon, without malicious intent of any harm??? PUH-LEASE

Yet another liberal sensationalized story, making mountains out of molehills


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> ...



Not all liberals are like that, but you want to make it more disturbing, try to puzzle this one out:

They want to make it illegal for law abiding citizens to carry guns in the open but will fight tooth and nail to give some criminal who kills another person with a concealed illegal gun rights and freedom.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> ...



In about 150 years and with a lot of good hard efforts maybe this so called lunatic fringe of the right wing will catch up with the lunatics on the left.



BasicGreatGuy said:


> They had a right to carry arms. They broke no laws.  I don't see what the problem is.



I typically find myself agreeing with your posts, but not this time.  See my reply to Diamond Dave.



DiamondDave said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> ...



Dave, I also typically find myself agreeing with you, but again not this time.

Yes, they have the legal right to bare those arms.  My problem is the message they are silently speaking.  It is a clear threat to the President.  They are saying that they have every intention of using those arms against him if the need be.  And what is most disturbing to me is that soon one of these lunatics might just try it and then who will get hurt?

Immie


----------



## Ravi (Aug 18, 2009)

Who are they gunning for...the president or their fellow Americans that have a differing point of view?


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> ...



Good thing the left has idiots like you to balance things out.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Chrissy is nothing if not a broken record of lunatic, leftwingnut rhetoric.  Take that away from him and he'd have to learn a new language ... like English.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > BasicGreatGuy said:
> ...



While I can agree with your overall sentiment where the government is concerned, and if this was a leftwingnut protest they'd just be wondering why the crowd was underarmed, I don't see the point to brandishing firearms at a political protest over healthcare.  A Second Amendment protest, maybe.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 18, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Who are they gunning for...the president or their fellow Americans that have a differing point of view?



Doesn't say they were gunning for anyone.  I didn't see where a single firearm was discharged.


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



It is not a "clear threat".. it is a demonstration and expression of the rights they hold dear... there is no correlation between a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon in demonstration and some 'lunatic' trying some forceful action against the President


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > They had a right to carry arms. They broke no laws.  I don't see what the problem is.
> ...



In that State it is not only legal it is perfectly accepted amongst the Police and the people to go about armed. The only danger of violence is when the press drums up enough outrage amongst the left to do something stupid.

The Secret Service STATED for the record that they were not concerned in the least, that it did not effect their security arrangement and that it did not distract from the job of protecting the President.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Who are they gunning for...the president or their fellow Americans that have a differing point of view?



I aim for whatever would taste better on the grill and I have room for in the freezer.


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 18, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta remmeber ta bring ma shooin iron next time!
> ...



nawww,, drag out the black panthers with their nightsticks.. nobody on the left had a problem with that when we all went to the polls.. hells bells the obamalama justice department just dropped the case.. so I don't know why youse babies are whining about now!


----------



## DavidS (Aug 18, 2009)

These people are not a threat, no. The people who are watching them on TV and conjouring an idea up in their little fucking stupid pea-brained heads are the ones who are a threat. There are a lot of people out there who feel their country has been stolen from them by a Nigerian and they "want their country back." The guy who actually manages to, and I've said all along that it's not a matter of if, but when, get a clear shot of Obama will go off touting the very same BS proported by the birthers on this forum. They'll talk about ACORN and how they somehow faked 9 million votes, they'll talk about his birth certificate, they'll talk about Obama's soon-to-come ban on guns, and his socialistic ways... everything the right-wingers on this forum talk about. And then they'll say something nobody else on this forum has said... "He had to be stopped." Then the guy will look oddly familiar to some of you... as you've seen this guy before... on Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity and attending rallies last year watching Sarah Palin talk about Obama's "associations" and how he "pals around with terrorists."

The problem is, all of this shit is completely bullshit. He was born in America, he's not a socialist, ACORN faked 500,000 not 9 million and Obama is not going to ban the second amendment. The problem is the Republicans and the conservatives are making this stuff up, or stretching the truth to fit their own political agenda and to try and get re-elected. It began before Obama was even elected. It's a pretty big problem and a pretty sad problem. Disagree with his policies? Oh sure, there's plenty of room for that -- but calling the man a socialist? Saying he's from Kenya? Come on. Some of you people fit the bill for what one of these loons could do and remember, it only takes one shot.

Hopefully if Obama is shot, it will not be a serious wound and he'll be fine. Maybe then the Republicans the conservatives will tone down their rhetoric. I'm not saying they'll outright stop disagreeing with him -- I'm saying they'll disagree with his actual policies and not with speculative policies that no US President would ever propose.

If Obama is shot and killed, there will be a race war like nothing you have ever seen before in the US.

So I would take a trip down to the Hannity forums, write to Joseph Farrah over @ WND, send a quick message to Drudge, and let them all know to CALM DOWN THE RHETORIC.

You too, Willow.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

DavidS said:


> These people are not a threat, no. The people who are watching them on TV and conjouring an idea up in their little fucking stupid pea-brained heads are the ones who are a threat. There are a lot of people out there who feel their country has been stolen from them by a Nigerian and they "want their country back." The guy who actually manages to, and I've said all along that it's not a matter of if, but when, get a clear shot of Obama will go off touting the very same BS proported by the birthers on this forum. They'll talk about ACORN and how they somehow faked 9 million votes, they'll talk about his birth certificate, they'll talk about Obama's soon-to-come ban on guns, and his socialistic ways... everything the right-wingers on this forum talk about. And then they'll say something nobody else on this forum has said... "He had to be stopped." Then the guy will look oddly familiar to some of you... as you've seen this guy before... on Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity and attending rallies last year watching Sarah Palin talk about Obama's "associations" and how he "pals around with terrorists."
> 
> The problem is, all of this shit is completely bullshit. He was born in America, he's not a socialist, ACORN faked 500,000 not 9 million and Obama is not going to ban the second amendment. The problem is the Republicans and the conservatives are making this stuff up, or stretching the truth to fit their own political agenda and to try and get re-elected. It began before Obama was even elected. It's a pretty big problem and a pretty sad problem. Disagree with his policies? Oh sure, there's plenty of room for that -- but calling the man a socialist? Saying he's from Kenya? Come on. Some of you people fit the bill for what one of these loons could do and remember, it only takes one shot.
> 
> Hopefully if Obama is shot, it will not be a serious wound and he'll be fine. Maybe then the Republicans the conservatives will tone down their rhetoric. I'm not saying they'll outright stop disagreeing with him -- I'm saying they'll disagree with his actual policies and not with speculative policies that no US President would ever propose.



Hey Dave--take your own weapon to a rally and if you see anyone taking a bead on the pres to could take him out and be a hero.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2009)

DavidS said:


> These people are not a threat, no. The people who are watching them on TV and conjouring an idea up in their little fucking stupid pea-brained heads are the ones who are a threat. There are a lot of people out there who feel their country has been stolen from them by a Nigerian and they "want their country back." The guy who actually manages to, and I've said all along that it's not a matter of if, but when, get a clear shot of Obama will go off touting the very same BS proported by the birthers on this forum. They'll talk about ACORN and how they somehow faked 9 million votes, they'll talk about his birth certificate, they'll talk about Obama's soon-to-come ban on guns, and his socialistic ways... everything the right-wingers on this forum talk about. And then they'll say something nobody else on this forum has said... "He had to be stopped." Then the guy will look oddly familiar to some of you... as you've seen this guy before... on Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity and attending rallies last year watching Sarah Palin talk about Obama's "associations" and how he "pals around with terrorists."
> 
> The problem is, all of this shit is completely bullshit. He was born in America, he's not a socialist, ACORN faked 500,000 not 9 million and Obama is not going to ban the second amendment. The problem is the Republicans and the conservatives are making this stuff up, or stretching the truth to fit their own political agenda and to try and get re-elected. It began before Obama was even elected. It's a pretty big problem and a pretty sad problem. Disagree with his policies? Oh sure, there's plenty of room for that -- but calling the man a socialist? Saying he's from Kenya? Come on. Some of you people fit the bill for what one of these loons could do and remember, it only takes one shot.
> 
> Hopefully if Obama is shot, it will not be a serious wound and he'll be fine. Maybe then the Republicans the conservatives will tone down their rhetoric. I'm not saying they'll outright stop disagreeing with him -- I'm saying they'll disagree with his actual policies and not with speculative policies that no US President would ever propose.



You , the press and the left are the ones scaring people with fake outrage over people exercising their Constitutional rights. Creating problems where none exist. Your tactics of scaring everyone is going to bite you in the ass sooner then later. The left, not the right practice that tactic ALL the time.

All you leftists on this board screaming cause the right are protesting and making false claims like the right are violating Freedom of Speech and that carrying a weapon equates to murder are the ones trying to deny rights. 

Pelosi is on RECORD for supporting disruptive protest right up until the right started to protest, now she is all for curtailing protest.

I don't recall you whining one bit about the protests and vile things said about Bush. Or about the hateful tactics used against him.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> >
> > Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
> >
> ...



It's disturbing to see citizens exercising their constitutional right?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> ...



The problem is those disturbed by this don't believe in the Constitution.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Good point.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Politicians can and do take away your constitutional rights without firing a shot-----so who are the really dangerous people at this rally ?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I manage to hit one once in a while.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

DavidS said:


> These people are not a threat, no. The people who are watching them on TV and conjouring an idea up in their little fucking stupid pea-brained heads are the ones who are a threat. There are a lot of people out there who feel their country has been stolen from them by a Nigerian and they "want their country back."



That is what concerns me.  There is enough anti-healthcare rhetoric out there today to send the next Paul Hill over the edge.

BTW Davids, the claim is that he is Kenyan, not Nigerian.

Immie


----------



## DavidS (Aug 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > These people are not a threat, no. The people who are watching them on TV and conjouring an idea up in their little fucking stupid pea-brained heads are the ones who are a threat. There are a lot of people out there who feel their country has been stolen from them by a Nigerian and they "want their country back." The guy who actually manages to, and I've said all along that it's not a matter of if, but when, get a clear shot of Obama will go off touting the very same BS proported by the birthers on this forum. They'll talk about ACORN and how they somehow faked 9 million votes, they'll talk about his birth certificate, they'll talk about Obama's soon-to-come ban on guns, and his socialistic ways... everything the right-wingers on this forum talk about. And then they'll say something nobody else on this forum has said... "He had to be stopped." Then the guy will look oddly familiar to some of you... as you've seen this guy before... on Glen Beck, and Sean Hannity and attending rallies last year watching Sarah Palin talk about Obama's "associations" and how he "pals around with terrorists."
> ...



Carrying a weapon does not equate murder. Carrying an assault rifle to a protest of the President's policies is a threat against him.



> Pelosi is on RECORD for supporting disruptive protest right up until the right started to protest, now she is all for curtailing protest.



I don't give a shit about Pelosi and protests. These people can protest Obama's policies all they want. They should not do it, though, with guns. You know who else protests with guns? Terrorists. They protest with guns.



> I don't recall you whining one bit about the protests and vile things said about Bush. Or about the hateful tactics used against him.



First of all, I wasn't on here at the time. Second of all, the anti-war movement was full of cooks and crazies on the far left. If you take Cindy Sheehan and see how nutty she was -- and believe me she was nutty -- she doesn't come close to how nutty these right-wingers are. When the anti-war movement was around, I was a Republican supporting Bush at the time and believe me, I said some nasty, derogatory things about them. 

Now I've seen the "Right" for what they are... a bunch of hypocrites being controlled by multi-millionaires to advance the price of their stock.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> It is not a "clear threat".. it is a demonstration and expression of the rights they hold dear... there is no correlation between a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon in demonstration and some 'lunatic' trying some forceful action against the President



Dave, as said earlier, if this were a 2nd Amendment protest, I might agree with you, but this is different and as far as I can see these people were sending messages to the President.  I think those messages are inappropriate.

Immie


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like a bunch of idiots to me.
> ...



In my lifetime there has been a President killed, two presidential candidates killed, and two attempted assasinations of Presidents. 

These people should have the cops up their ass for about two years, looking at everything they do or say. A bit more of this foolishness, and then the President does get shot, and we all lose some of our rights to bear arms.

But then such an obvious consequence would escape your little mind, wouldn't it, Dive.


----------



## editec (Aug 18, 2009)

I take it that none of you will mind when people who are obviously on the left side of the equasion show up armed the next time Sarah Palin or Glen Beck speaks, too, right?


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 18, 2009)

Why is it that just because someone asks a legitimate question over whether bringing a gun is dangerous it's instantly branded as reactionary liberalism? When you say that, you turn yourself into a knee-jerk reactionary yourself.  

I think what's escaping most of the people in this thread is that just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's morally right or even safe.

I've heard two Secret Service commentators now question whether is was the right thing to do. Of course, there are people who will say anything for a buck and to be on TV, but you'd like to think that someone of their stature would give an honest answer.

By way of some back story on myself, I used to own a gun range. My father started it and I operated it for 6 years. I have at least 12 guns that I can name off the top of my head, including a quasi-legal assault rifle.  I've even trained my wife on how to use a handgun for personal protection at the house (although I told her to get the .410 shotgun pistol since it'll kick less and spray more).

Wars start because countries amass weapons at their borders and keep bumping into each other with frequency. It's just a fact. And if the anti-Obama camp can't at least admit that increasing the frequency of guns near the Pres increases the frequency that something bad with those guns will happen, you're towing the party line and sticking your head in the sand.

I'm not going to play the "what if" game...because that's not fair. "What if someone takes a gun away from a law-abiding citizen?" We could play what if all day and it wouldn't add anything to the conversation.

The truth is, no matter what the Secret Service says, you wont know who they thought were persons of interest and possible dangers because they dont want you knowing their methods or thinking they're losing their cool.

The fact is, these people are being provocative to get attention. We all know it. And their defenders are hiding behind the legality of it. Yeah, it's legal, but it's not necessarily smart or right.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

How about some perspecitve ? Who has done more harm to Americans ? Assassins or politicians ?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> The problem is those disturbed by this don't believe in the Constitution.



Not true, KK.

I am all for the right to bare arms although I do not want my next door neighbor having a nuke.

I have the right to pick my nose or scratch my crotch in public.  That doesn't mean I excercise that right.  With rights come responsibility.

Immie


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is those disturbed by this don't believe in the Constitution.
> ...



no one has been shot--they are being responsible.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 18, 2009)

Did President Bush not make any visits or appearances in Arizona?

Why is it that these gun toting people did not ever make this kind of attempt when president bush was president and visiting there?

Why didn't they carry their guns at one of the many rallies that McCain had in his own state?  Certainly we would have heard about it....?

One has to ask oneself what exactly was the message these gun owners were trying to make with Obama?


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> How about some perspecitve ? Who has done more harm to Americans ? Assassins or politicians ?



That comment doesnt even make sense. Obviously you're hinting that politicians have done more to harm Americans, but that amounts to a really bad defense of assassins.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Did President Bush not make any visits or appearances in Arizona?
> 
> Why is it that these gun toting people did not ever make this kind of attempt when president bush was president and visiting there?
> 
> ...



hmmm let me guess----"don't fuck with the second amendment " ?


----------



## Ravi (Aug 18, 2009)

Squeaky Fromme protested with a gun, too.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 18, 2009)

Gosh, I wonder how the secret service can actually protect the president under these kind of circumstances?  

Someone from out of state or even a foreign country, could be in that crowd, holding his rifle in public, but is really an assassin trying to kill the President that won't be noticed due to the crowd of gun toting law abiding citizens there at the rally...?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



If the worst happens, just watch how this is viewed afterwards. You dips are a clear danger to my right to own and bear arms.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



"Has been" is the operative phrase there.  Let's just pray that no one is shot.

And another thing, it is not just the gun totters or the President that are endangered here.  The rest of the crowd of protesters are put at risk by this.  A Secret Service agent seeing something suspicious near the President while they are in a heightened sense of alert because of the gun totters might just injure or kill an innocent bystander.

Immie


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 18, 2009)

Thing is you dont bring a weapon to a Rally like this be it the president, congress, mayor, or your mom tupperware party. There is no reason to bring a  weapon to these rallies at all especially a loaded one. The people who do this are idiots, the rally he was protesting had nothing to do with the second amendment anyways what the hell. Thing is if something does happen you all will be saying no there should not be any new gun laws enacted when you supported the idiots bringing the guns in a place they should not bring one  in the first place. You are right its not the guns fault its the idiots who carry the guns when they dont need to be armed at all. 

USE COMMON SENSE:
Do you bring a weapon to a location you know will get you emotionally excited(angry). Thats just plain stupid!!


----------



## Care4all (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Did President Bush not make any visits or appearances in Arizona?
> ...



Bullshit...

Bush was no great shakes when it came to the 2nd amendment or any of our Bill of rights come to think of it....  And Mccain hasn't been that great on the 2nd amendment rights either....

Let me guess at what they were trying to say, "Don't fuck with me, or I will fucking kill you!"

Is more like the message I see being told, especially since they did no such thing with McCain or President Bush etc....

What laws has Obama had passed that gives them no more 2nd amendment rights than Bush?


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a "clear threat".. it is a demonstration and expression of the rights they hold dear... there is no correlation between a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon in demonstration and some 'lunatic' trying some forceful action against the President
> ...



So unless a leftist protester is directly protesting against Nazism, then their use of things labeling Bush as a nazi was wrong? You do not have to have every last thing directly targeted (no pun intended) in a protest or political statement. If you are at a tea party protest and you have something symbolizing your stance against abortion, that is your business, whether others think it is the right place or the right message or not.

No.. This was them exercising their rights, as granted by the constitution and their state law.. I would agree with you if they were breaking the law and if they were openly showing threats of violence with the weapons in hand.. but this was NOT the case


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 18, 2009)

editec said:


> I take it that none of you will mind when people who are obviously on the left side of the equasion show up armed the next time Sarah Palin or Glen Beck speaks, too, right?


 If protesters in Arizona do this in the exact same way in some protest against Palin or Newt or whomever else, all well and good.. they are not breaking any law and are not threatening violence


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Did President Bush not make any visits or appearances in Arizona?
> 
> Why is it that these gun toting people did not ever make this kind of attempt when president bush was president and visiting there?
> 
> ...



Who says they haven't done it with every president? You only hear about this kind of shit when it drums up outrage, in other words, when the media can milk it for ratings.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



LMAO---excerising a constitutional right is a death threat ?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



I don't remember anybody taking guns to a protest against Bush. Would you care to point out where this has happened.

This was intended as a threat, and that is how most citizens will view it. You wingnuts are moving well outside the boundries of sanity.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Dave,

When was the last time you saw me supporting the leftist who labeled Bush a NAZI?

I disagree about them excercising their rights, they were making a statement and that statement has no place in America.

Immie


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 18, 2009)

Thanks for totally side-stepping my post on the last page, guys. Means you thought I was right


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a "clear threat".. it is a demonstration and expression of the rights they hold dear... there is no correlation between a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon in demonstration and some 'lunatic' trying some forceful action against the President
> ...



What do you suppose their message was?

George Washington once said; "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, securely and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."  

The 2nd amendment grants us the right to protect our liberty, even from an abusive government.


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 18, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




this was not a threat.. there were no open threats.. there was no resemblance of any other threat.. .and the Secret Service was not involved on any higher level because of it... the only ones viewing it as any sort of threat are you far left wingnut moonbats....

As stated, if this were in a place/state where open carry was against the law, or if there was threatening action being taken with any weapon, I would be whole hog against it... but this was not the case...

Oh.. and BTW.. neg rep right back at you, moonbat


----------



## Care4all (Aug 18, 2009)

Vanquish said:


> Thanks for totally side-stepping my post on the last page, guys. Means you thought I was right



hahahahaha, I don't know what you SAID on the other page, but what has happened to you has happened to me, many a day!!!!  And i thought it was funny that it happens to others...


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 18, 2009)

The biggest laugh in all this, is can you imagine the right's reaction if lefties had turned up at a Bush rally with their peashooters...lol..when a person wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt is tossed out of a rally...LOL...LOL....Welcome ot the United States of Bush...lol


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> What do you suppose their message was?
> 
> George Washington once said; "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To secure peace, securely and happiness, the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."
> 
> The 2nd amendment grants us the right to protect our liberty, even from an abusive government.



The message was, "We are prepared to shoot you if you proceed with this course of action."  Their message was that they are not above assassination in order to get their way.

Regarding the Washington quote, please don't tell me you think these people were protecting the protesters.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



WTF(udge)?  Me a left wing moonbat!  Now, I have been called many things, but this is the lowest of lows Dave!

Immie


----------



## editec (Aug 18, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Squeaky Fromme protested with a gun, too.


 
Her gun wasn't even loaded!


----------



## Dr Grump (Aug 18, 2009)

editec said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Squeaky Fromme protested with a gun, too.
> ...



...and was she a felon at the time??


----------



## Ravi (Aug 18, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


No, but she did have ties with the Aryan Brotherhood.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 18, 2009)

editec said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Squeaky Fromme protested with a gun, too.
> ...



It was loaded, no round was chambered.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You are willing to state the reality of the obvious, that makes you a left winger on this board.


----------



## editec (Aug 18, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


 
Yup.


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > What do you suppose their message was?
> ...



Nice attempt to read more into the event itself...

Quite frankly, this 'statement' was less of a threat than the people calling for Bush to be tried and executed for 'war crimes'...

Again.. these people were showing their right to peacefully bear arms under the laws of the country and their state.. there was no action or threat shown or given against the President or anyone else...

Would I personally have chosen to do it? No... Just as I do not personally go around with signs of Obama with crosshairs pained on or any other 'over the top' show... but there was nothing wrong, nor was there any implied violence, in what was done


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Uhhh.. that was to the left wing moonbat Old Rocks in the head.. as shown by who was quoted


----------



## Care4all (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


FYI
A FAKE QUOTE, attributed to George Washington that *simply was never said by him.*



> BOGUS, FAKE & QUESTIONABLE QUOTES
> FALSELY ATTRIBUTED TO THE
> FOUNDING FATHERS
> 
> ...


----------



## DavidS (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Completely agree -- just look at how many rights are taken away by the Patriot Act!


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2009)

We who own guns and use them like to believe that we are the majority in this nation. But we are not. We are now a far more urban nation that a rural one. And there are many who see no need for armed citizens in our present society. There are many others that are, at present, neutral on this subject. There have been record numbers of threats to President Obama. If someone actually carries out that threat, the presently neutral people on the subject of gun control will no longer be neutral. And they will be angry, and see the type of people that were carrying the guns at these rallies as accomplices in the assination. 

You freakin' wingnuts are setting up a horrible situation.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 18, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Xenophon said:
> ...


Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, a senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, obtained an opinion Thursday from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) affirming that charges could legally be refiled without violating the double-jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution and said he thought Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was obligated to refile the case.

"In all fairness, he has a duty to protect those seeking to vote and I remain deeply troubled by this questionable dismissal of an important voter-intimidation case in Philadelphia," Mr. Wolf told The Washington Times.

Lawmakers seek refiling in Panther case - Washington Times


----------



## WillowTree (Aug 18, 2009)

DavidS said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



I'd like to know how the patriot act caused any loss of rights to you personally, how did it affect yew? what did your lawyer say? on what grounds do you deserve compensation? TIA.


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 18, 2009)

Just keep the weapons at home!!! There is no need for them, if I am at a rally and someone comes up with one prepare to get your ass handed to you. Especailly if I have my kid with me your ass is forfeit.


----------



## DavidS (Aug 18, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



How did it effect me personally? I don't think it has. I don't know if my phone conversations were tapped by the Bush Administration. How could it have? I could've had a Farmer's Almanac in my car and I could've been stopped, pulled over, searched and detained without any cause whatsoever other than a policeman's "curiosity." The 4th amendment was completely void and null during the Bush administration.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > What do you suppose their message was?
> ...



I think they simply wanted to exercise their constitutional right. I would think that if a person had any plans of assassinating anyone, they wouldn't be openly displaying their weapon.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



Hehe, I figured as much, but then note the plurality of the colored/bold statement!

FWIW no offense taken.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> I think they simply wanted to exercise their constitutional right. I would think that if a person had any plans of assassinating anyone, they wouldn't be openly displaying their weapon.



I think it was an implied threat, really no different than bringing a noose to such an event.

Immie


----------



## Care4all (Aug 18, 2009)

Yes, I agree, the law abiding citizens, there to supposedly just display their rights might be doing just that, voicing an opinion...but why this day, why in front of the president....?

Doing this, puts the president at a huge RISK....not from the law abiding ones, but the law abiding ones GIVE GOOD COVER for an assassin that does want to kill him....

THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED....it could be very harmful to our president and it clearly is not a safe situation for him....and makes it ten times harder for for the secret service to keep our president safe from a looney tune assassin.

Can;t you all understand something as simple as that....?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




Show me a copy of Washington's Address to 1st session of Congress and then I might beleive you.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> They had a right to carry arms. They broke no laws.  I don't see what the problem is.



You're kidding, right?  People have the right to free speech as well, but that doesn't make Fred Phelps and his gang anything other than scum.  Carrying the guns was an implied threat, and it just looks stupid to try to pretend that's not the case or that its a-ok simply because they were doing it to the "other side."


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > I think they simply wanted to exercise their constitutional right. I would think that if a person had any plans of assassinating anyone, they wouldn't be openly displaying their weapon.
> ...



I think those that have a problem with it are just being paranoid.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Maybe so, but I see it as a threat to the President and something that I view as uncalled for.  And paranoid is not the right word for it.  I have a problem with it.  Paranoid, means being afraid that everyone is out to get the paranoid person.  I'm not worried they are out to get me.  But, I understand what you mean.  I just think this is the wrong message to send in America.  It is something that seems like it would come from the citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Immie


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 18, 2009)

Ok, I'll bite.

The US Patriot act brought abrogation of due process. The grounds you speak of are the same grounds for damages whenever due process is violated.

It's the end justifies the means all over again. "OMGZ!! Tehroritzs could kill, so letz hold them with no charges."  Jack Bauer is great on 24, but it's really surprising when people get held with no charges, no trial, no counsel, for indefinite periods in complete contradiction to the Constitution.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Yes, I agree, the law abiding citizens, there to supposedly just display their rights might be doing just that, voicing an opinion...but why this day, why in front of the president....?
> 
> Doing this, puts the president at a huge RISK....not from the law abiding ones, but the law abiding ones GIVE GOOD COVER for an assassin that does want to kill him....
> 
> ...



Why not this day, why not in front of the President?

It should and is allowed under the Constitution of the United States of America. What you want to go and change the constitution? You want to trample on the rights of a law abiding citizen? Just because you may not like guns and would never have the courage to exercise your right to bear arms, doesn't mean is shouldn't be done.


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 18, 2009)

Thing is when people do things like this they actually help make an argument for gun control. One  gun is at home in a locked box key is with me the other is in my car, I dont have to carry it everywhere I go. I am not worried about my 2nd Amendment rights but when I see people do idiotic things, it makes me start to rethink guns. If an dummy can carry one around the president should I start looking around at my kids flag football games, or at a block party. That means I have to carry my gun too then because I dont trust no damn body carrying a gun around my family. If there is no imminent danger, there is no need.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Show me a copy of Washington's Address to 1st session of Congress and then I might beleive you.



OK.  Here's his first state of the union address.



> State of the Union
> George Washington
> January 8, 1790
> Federal Hall, New York City
> ...




It's not in there.  Though I did get a giggle over the push for science and art grants.


You can find his first inaugural address here: George Washington's First Inaugural Address - 1789

It's not in there either.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Why not this day, why not in front of the President?
> 
> It should and is allowed under the Constitution of the United States of America.



I agree it should be allowed. That doesn't mean that the actions should be taken.  Responsible adults do not act in such a manner.

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. 

The last, most important check on government abuse of individual rights is an armed populace. A written constitution requires somebody to enforce it. Any mechanism built into the government, such as Checks and Balances, can be eventually bypassed by a determined government. Ultimately, the only thing that can prevent the use of force is the threat or use of greater force. To this end, the people are the ultimate check on government. 

Only an armed population has the ability to overthrow a tyrannical government. Governments are well aware of this. In every dictatorship, ownership of guns is outlawed to the general populace. Before the Nazis went about exterminating their Jewish population, they needed to disarm them first. A state treads carefully when the citizens are armed.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



You'd be hard pressed to find someone who supports the individual right to bear arms more strongly than I do, but that doesn't mean I support ever idiot who decides to exercise that right in a manner that clearly shows he has small dick issues.  There was zero reason to show up with a gun other than as an implied threat.  It was maturity on the level of an 11 year old boy.  Which seems to be where many people opt to stop their emotional growth for some reason.

Remember - just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing.


----------



## del (Aug 18, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta remmeber ta bring ma shooin iron next time!
> ...



speaking of really bad ideas....

Restaurant owners&#039; plea fails to stop Tennessee&#039;s guns-in-bars law // Current


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Show me a copy of Washington's Address to 1st session of Congress and then I might beleive you.
> ...



Nice, But it's not Washington's Address to 1st session of Congress.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Why not this day, why not in front of the President?
> ...



Obviously they do.


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 18, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



It is not unconstitutional nor illegal to be immature, unpopular, or in possession of an idea/action that could be frowned upon


----------



## Ravi (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


I don't see it so much as a threat against the President...I think it is more to intimidate anyone that supports health care reform including any politicians and the general public.

And while I have no problem with people expressing their second amendment rights I have a problem with being the subject of intimidation. Civil rights shouldn't be used to deprive others of their civil rights.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




They suffer from "small dick issues"? And you have evidence to that effect? The reason, as I've stated is perfectly clear. They wanted to exercise their Constitutional right.  Just because YOU wouldn't do such a thing doesn't mean everyone shouldn't do it. You're wanting force your will on someone else and that's trampling on their constitutional right. Again what evidence do you have of their maturity level?


----------



## Ravi (Aug 18, 2009)

My bad. Apparently it is a direct threat against Obama, according to this video posted by the guy with the semi-automatic.
Man With Assault Rifle Outside Obama Event: 'Taxation Is Theft' | LiveWire


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Can we pleez vote on that?


----------



## Newby (Aug 18, 2009)

Vanquish said:


> *I think what's escaping most of the people in this thread is that just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's morally right or even safe.*



Morals don't come into play, the law is what comes into play here.  I could say the exact same thing about abortion, yet I would guess that you'd be on the other side of the line there along with alot of other libs.  I love how the left uses morals whenever it is convenient to do so for their cause, yet screams at the top of their lungs whenever they feel they're being forced to another's moral point of view via the law that they disagree with.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> It is not unconstitutional nor illegal to be immature, unpopular, or in possession of an idea/action that could be frowned upon



I didn't say it was unconstitutional or illegal.  I said it was stupid.  Ever heard the story of the boy who cried wolf?  Same thing.



> You're wanting force your will on someone else and that's trampling on their constitutional right.



Interesting reading.  Now show me what I've said along those lines.



> Again what evidence do you have of their maturity level?



This part of the article for one:  "The man with the rifle declined to be identified..."

Pathetic.  Protest like a man, or be consigned to the "small dick issues" label as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Nice, But it's not Washington's Address to 1st session of Congress.



I posted his first state of the union and a link to his first inaugural address to congress.  To what are you referring?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Whether these people are responsible adults or not is a matter of opinion and one that you and I obviously do not share.  

Immie


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 18, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I didn't hear any reports that anyone brandished their weapon, let alone discharged it. I didn't hear any reports that anyone armed with a firearm accosted anyone at the event. I don't understand where you get the intimidation factor.

While I'm pretty sure I won't be bringing my M-14 to any political events, if it's legal to do so and nobody misused their weapons or used their rights to miscarry justice (brought a weapon legally, then misused it), I don't see the problem with it. 

I think there is a symbolic message contained in the fact that armed people are showing up at political rallies. I think it should be sending a sending a message to politicians that they are threading on ground that could incite a revolt. That people are seeing a government exceeding its charter to such an extent, that they may be willing to become more than politically active; to become that final check on tyrannical government.

I must say, I am surprised that we have arrived here so quickly, but it's good warning sign that the pols should heed and curtail their efforts at instituting greater controls over people's lives. However, I think the pols are too avaricious to heed any such warning and will plow ahead undaunted.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 18, 2009)

What cracks me up is that the stupid neo cons think Obama is trying to take away your guns.  Don't ya think he could have these stupid fucks taken off the streets if he wanted WITH GOOD REASON?

That fuckwad Bush wouldn't let ya within a mile of him if he didn't like your T-shirt.

What it shows is that Obama understands the constitution and isn't afraid of you ding bats  with guns or without...and Bush was and is a major coward with no love for the constitution or the people that revere it.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> I think there is a symbolic message contained in the fact that armed people are showing up at political rallies. I think it should be sending a sending a message to politicians that they are threading on ground that could incite a revolt. That people are seeing a government exceeding its charter to such an extent, that they may be willing to become more than politically active; to become that final check on tyrannical government.
> 
> I must say, I am surprised that we have arrived here so quickly, but it's good warning sign that the pols should heed and curtail their efforts at instituting greater controls over people's lives. However, I think the pols are too avaricious to heed any such warning and will plow ahead undaunted.



See I'm not the only person right of center that sees a threat here.

That is basically how I see this.  I simply don't think we should be going so far with this message.  We are after all, still a Democratic Republic that believes in the ideas of freedom.  Allowing these gun totters to dictate policy via intimidation is a scary thing in my book.  

Immie


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

I could see at as a reasonable protest if, say, the bills being debated involved gun restrictions.  But this is just dumb.  As I said, it's the boy who cried wolf.


----------



## Mr.Fitnah (Aug 18, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



the" pat act" is an extension of the drug war laws, just try to  carry a couple of stacks around or buy a plane ticket with cash while carrying  plenty, you wont like it and may have a real problem  getting the money back.
Buying money orders  for more than a few thousand alerts government agents if the sale is done  by the book.
Beyond that  the taxes we pay are an assault on freedom.
everything is taxed in some way.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 18, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> I could see at as a reasonable protest if, say, the bills being debated involved gun restrictions.  But this is just dumb.  As I said, it's the boy who cried wolf.



You have something related to the "Bilderbergs" on your tag line. That puts your ability to add 2 and 2 and get 4 under extreme scrutiny.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is a symbolic message contained in the fact that armed people are showing up at political rallies. I think it should be sending a sending a message to politicians that they are threading on ground that could incite a revolt. That people are seeing a government exceeding its charter to such an extent, that they may be willing to become more than politically active; to become that final check on tyrannical government.
> ...



Well, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying that I have any problem with folks carrying firearms. I also don't think they are driving the message. Neither did I detect any intimidation.

My point is that the overreaching policies of the current government have actually spurred some people (even if they are fringe elements) to bring their weapons to political events. This is a pre-cursor warning that the policies are going too far. 

The politicians can choose to blithely ignore it. But, I fear if they do, it will result in not so fringe elements carrying weapons to political meetings in the not so distant future. And, that is likely as not to lead to a some kind of snowball effect and take on a life of its own. 

Is it time for a revolution? I'm not sure. Ask Thomas Jefferson and he'd probably say we're about 70 years too late for a revolution. Ask your typical liberal and it would never be time as long as the government is clamping down good and tight. I wonder if we'll find out.


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 18, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Please the act of having a gun in the open (carried semi auto on strap on shoulder) is intimidation much less a semi automatic weapon. If I was walking down your street with one I bet you would be intimidated might even bring your gun out if you have one.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Nice, But it's not Washington's Address to 1st session of Congress.
> ...



I'm referring to Washington's Address to 1st session of Congress. NOT his first inaugural address nor his first state of the union address.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Well while you sit and let the government shove socialism down your throat , people like me and those armed citizens will be fighting to prevent it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> What cracks me up is that the stupid neo cons think Obama is trying to take away your guns.  Don't ya think he could have these stupid fucks taken off the streets if he wanted WITH GOOD REASON?
> 
> That fuckwad Bush wouldn't let ya within a mile of him if he didn't like your T-shirt.
> 
> What it shows is that Obama understands the constitution and isn't afraid of you ding bats  with guns or without...and Bush was and is a major coward with no love for the constitution or the people that revere it.



What good reason would that be nancy?

They didn't break any laws. Bush isn't even a factor why do you stupid fucks insist on bringing him up everytime you attempt to defend Obama?

Perhaps attacking Bush is the only way you can defend Obama.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 18, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



You are nothing if not one of the most ignorant motherfuckers here at USMB.

Have you read the Patriot Act I,II?

What "liberal" was responsible for the most fascist document to make law in the USA?

That shit is straight up neo con christian fascist.  I sit and wonder sometimes if people like you and people like me are of the same species.  You are such a fool.  Who turned off your brain?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

cunclusion said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



ahhhhhhhhhh so you love the false security you get by burying your head in the sand and pretending citizens aren't armed if you can't see the weapon.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

cunclusion said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The sight of a firearm intimidates you? Hahhaahahahhahahahahahahaha


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 18, 2009)

cunclusion said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I have to disagree. I don't see anything intimidating about someone who has a weapon slung over their back. Now if they were brandishing it, that might be different. I think it's much ado about nothing.


----------



## editec (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


 
Will you?

I rather doubt it.

What exactly are YOU doing to prevent socialism?

Voting R? 

Writing nasty things about liberals on the internet?

And you think that those things will help this nation not become a totalitarian state, do you?

Don't count on it.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 18, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Coming from you, that's a compliment. So I'll accept it as one. 

Thank you!


----------



## Barb (Aug 18, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



 I had to give Chris some partisan hack rep (and a thanks) just because I could. So, spanky, what do you deem to be the appropriate use of political left and right? How do you think it is most widely perceived in most American conversations?


----------



## editec (Aug 18, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 18, 2009)

Gun Carrying Americans have a chilling effect on Socialism


----------



## bourne87 (Aug 18, 2009)

Please the act of having a gun in the open (carried semi auto on strap on shoulder) is intimidation much less a semi automatic weapon. If I was walking down your street with one I bet you would be intimidated might even bring your gun out if you have one.[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? Of course I would know that you are voicing your right bear arms.....


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

editec said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I'm organizing like minded folks to attend town halls and encouraging them to write and/or call their respective representaves and to exercise their constitutional rights  at every juncture.

 I vote for who I believe will do the less damage, whether there's an "R" or a "D" by their name is of no consequence.

And yes I will take up arms and defend the constitution from socialism and not only will all these things help , it will be the deciding factor.

Obama will be lucky if he finishes out his first term, there will not be a second.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



But my point was that you too see it as a threat.

As I have said earlier, I don't have a problem with people carrying firearms either.  I simply believe there are times when they should not be carried and this is one of those times.

Immie


----------



## Barb (Aug 18, 2009)

WillowTree said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



USPA legalized every act found unconstitutional and illegal by the Church Commission in consideration of actions taken under COINTELPRO.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Both of the speeches I handed you fit your description.  As do others.  You're going to have to be more specific.  Washington delivered multiple Addresses to the first session of Congress.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Well while you sit and let the government shove socialism down your throat , people like me and those armed citizens will be fighting to prevent it.



Bullshit.  This is about party loyalty and nothing more.  Otherwise we'd have seen these "armed citizens" out when the Patriot Act was being passed and "Free Speech Zones" were being enforced.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Secret Service STATED for the record that they were not concerned in the least, that it did not effect their security arrangement and that it did not distract from the job of protecting the President.



Did you really expect them to say differently? Think about it.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



HERE IT IS, first address to congress on january 8, 1790

AND THE STATEMENT IS NOT in there lonestar???

First Annual Message to Congress by George Washington



> First Annual Message to Congress
> 
> George Washington
> January 8, 1790
> ...


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> and the Secret Service was not involved on any higher level because of it



How do you know that?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



In that immediate instant, I don't view them as a "threat." In a general warning about how seriously and deeply people are taking the proposed changes to our systems of government, they are a shot across the bow of the steamship "statism."


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > and the Secret Service was not involved on any higher level because of it
> ...



Try reading

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

Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest - Yahoo! News

Again... this is not some illegal action or threatening action when it is taking place in Arizona (nor should it be anywhere IMHO)... someone peaceably and openly carrying their weapon in a legal manor is not going to put up the huge warning flags... someone acting sneaky, nervous, suspicious, etc will draw MUCH more attention from security... this man was not anywhere close to the President to be some 'threat' (not like he was in the immediate crowd in front of the Prez), was not making any bold or threatening gestures, and was acting within his legal rights to do as he did....


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gudrid said:
> ...



His very first address, to the 1st session of Congress. That's where the quote in question supposedly originated.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


You really believe they'd admit to additional security? That they'd admit they believed there was a heightened threat? 

Think about it.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


The first joint session of Congress was on April 6th; Washington was inaugurated on April 30th. I don't see any reference to a speech to Congress prior to that. Are you referring to a speech to the Continental Congress?


----------



## DiamondDave (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Again

THINK about it... was this man in the crowd in front of the President? Was this man in a firing position? Was this man acting suspicious? Was this man acting outside his legal rights?

Give me a freaking break.. .live in reality, not some partisan quackery illusion


----------



## DavidS (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> live in reality, not some partisan quackery illusion








My, look how *black* this *kettle* is.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gudrid said:
> ...



Well whoever the hell said it, made good sense.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Well while you sit and let the government shove socialism down your throat , people like me and those armed citizens will be fighting to prevent it.
> ...



Could be, but neveretheless nothing illegal took place.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Well whoever the hell said it, made good sense.



Even if (or especially if) you were the that said it?  

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gudrid said:
> ...



I think Care4all got the right speech dated Jan. 8th 1790, but it could have been in a different speech altogether, perhaps even in an address to the Continental Congress.


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 18, 2009)

If i carry a gun on a plane what will happen to me, if I carry a gun on any public transportation what will people think, if I carry a gun into the bank am I within my right then too. Does it not send a message hell no just places you should not be carrying a weapon.
1. Common Sense.
2. There is no freaking point to it. 
3. People do stupid things. 

As one goes does the flock and there is always a crazy-bastid in the flock.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

DiamondDave said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...


I'm not the one who claims the Secret Service didn't give a damn


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Well whoever the hell said it, made good sense.
> ...



If I had said it, it would have had a few "ya'll's" and some choice curse words in it.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I figured you editted those out.

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

cunclusion said:


> If i carry a gun on a plane what will happen to me, if I carry a gun on any public transportation what will people think, if I carry a gun into the bank am I within my right then too. Does it not send a message hell no just places you should not be carrying a weapon.
> 1. Common Sense.
> 2. There is no freaking point to it.
> 3. People do stupid things.
> ...



Common sense of which you obviously lack. They were not in a bank or on a plane or riding public transportation. They were within their rights to be armed, what part of that do you not understand?


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> cunclusion said:
> 
> 
> > If i carry a gun on a plane what will happen to me, if I carry a gun on any public transportation what will people think, if I carry a gun into the bank am I within my right then too. Does it not send a message hell no just places you should not be carrying a weapon.
> ...


Now I have to call you an asshole for that.

If its legal why don't they carry their guns to the bank, on public transportation and on a plane then?

Stop being so wilfully DENSE.


----------



## Vanquish (Aug 18, 2009)

Neil Boortz, the conservative talk-show host broadcast on my local station today that people bringing guns to healthcare townhalls was thuggery. Thug = his word verbatim. He said it was like the Iraqis outside of Saddam's villas.

Nice to see cooler heads are prevailing.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> > I could see at as a reasonable protest if, say, the bills being debated involved gun restrictions.  But this is just dumb.  As I said, it's the boy who cried wolf.
> ...



That's a joke due to a conversation with someone on this board.  You can find the conversation on my public member comments page.  Perhaps you need to work on your "scrutiny" skills before trying discredit someone in such a completely lame manner.


----------



## cunclusion (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> cunclusion said:
> 
> 
> > If i carry a gun on a plane what will happen to me, if I carry a gun on any public transportation what will people think, if I carry a gun into the bank am I within my right then too. Does it not send a message hell no just places you should not be carrying a weapon.
> ...



Im not talking about rights... .I am talking about common sense and the fact that they lack any when walking around with weapons. It doesnt matter if you are brandishing it or not it intimidates period. That is what I am talking about I dont care if they have their guns but carrying it in a public location such at that one is irresponsible.  There are some places you should and shouldnt carry it and that is one of them. 

See when you understand its not about rights at this point cause I could give a rats ass about that. But a mental understanding is what is truly needed to break it down to rights is asinine like everything else there are things you just  shouldnt do.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 18, 2009)

People that don't USE COMMON SENSE with their right to bear arms is the precise reason others want to legislate, more and more....

This is what these people have accomplished....bet my bottom dollar on that down the road, reference to this occaision will be one of the reasonings to restrict arms more....

And many wonder WHY people try to take their guns away...it's because of IDIOTS like those trying to intimidate... the liberty of others.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > cunclusion said:
> ...



I'm not sure what the law says in Arizona, but in Texas there are some places that you can't lawfully carry a weapon including government buildings. But we're talking about what those guys did, carrying a weapon on a public street. 

And why call me an asshole? Just because I defend the rights granted us by the constitution?


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Gudrid said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



That should be the inaugural address.  I linked to that (note the date).  

Washington's speeches are all transcribed and easily located online.  If you put one line from the quote into Google, it should pull the speech it was in without having to know anything other than the quote.  It doesn't pull any speeches of his; just sites claiming he said it and others saying he didn't.  The statement is too simplistic to come from Washington anyway, in my opinion. 

I think it's inarguable that the majority of the founding fathers supported the right to bear arms, and I think there's plenty of valid quotes of theirs that support that.  But I think misinformation is nothing but harmful, and I think our media and the internet is full of misinformation.  I think it's dragging us down as a country, and causing people to do stupid things.  Like show up for basic presidential speeches having nothing to with gun control carrying guns, thinking they're making some sort of brilliant statement.  It makes no one listen to anyone else, and both sides get led around by their ears by special interest groups, corrupt politicians, and anyone else with a profit or personal motive for doing so.  Drives me nuts.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

Care4all said:


> And many wonder WHY people try to take their guns away...it's because of IDIOTS like those trying to intimidate... the liberty of others.



The only legal way to deny the right to bear arms would be with a constitutional amendment.  Anything else is an attempt to thwart the constitution for personal opinion, and that is far more dangerous to this country as a whole than a dozen idiots showing up at a rally with trophy guns.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

cunclusion said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > cunclusion said:
> ...



It may intimidate you! But it doesn't intimidate me. The fact is your opinion doesn't matter, they (for whatever reason) decided to arm themselves (which is within their rights) to go protest against a policy they obviously felt was an intrusion on their rights. Tell you what. go interview( or find interviews from) a half dozen folks at that event and see if they felt intimidated.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 18, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Gudrid said:
> ...



I think they made an enormous statement. 

I will agree with you on the quote we discussed.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

Thank you.   This quote I think applies better anyway.



> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



That's really all that matters in terms of rights.

The behavior drags down the national dialogue, but it is not an excuse for calling for gun bans or questioning the the 2nd amendment.  It is, however, a good reason for criticizing those particular individuals for the manner in which they chose to exercise those rights.  Because while I haven't read every word of every founding father, what I have read indicates that gun ownership was something taken seriously and solemnly and meant for defense - of self and of liberty, in a literal use sense.  Not for displaying like a prop for "making a statement" over every little conflict of views.   And in my opinion, that's all this was about.  As I said before, as far as I'm concerned, it's just stupid dick waving in this case.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 18, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > And many wonder WHY people try to take their guns away...it's because of IDIOTS like those trying to intimidate... the liberty of others.
> ...



i am not certain i agree....

unless you are saying the only way the federal gvt can, is through a constitutional amendment, and even then...the federal gvt CAN and HAS limited the right to bear arms time and time again of which on several occasions have been upheld, and many many states have many restrictions upon their citizenry on their right to bear arms....

and i ask, have all of these circumstances where restrictions on bearing arms put on the citizens, by their states, unconstitutional?

care


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 18, 2009)

"Deny" and "limit" are two different words.  The government has the right to regulate certain things, as with the infamous yelling-fire-in-a-theatre first amendment example.  However, when certain lines are crossed, it's unconstitutional.  An attempt to thwart gun ownership and call it "regulation" is transparent - and using regulation to bypass gun ownership rights will be used against free speech and other protected rights in the future if allowed to stand.  But "infringed" is the key word, and it had looser connotations when the Constitution was written than it does now, as I understand.  So registration could be constitutionally justified.  Concealed carry permits are more than justified - there is nothing in constitution guaranteeing the right to hide a gun, merely carry out (that said, I do support concealed carry with a permit).  I don't believe the complete bans on ownership, however, are justified.  I don't know enough about gun types to make an informed decision about individual type bans, but generality I do think some of those have been used to thwart the constitution.

And yes, I think that states are supposed to be held to the same standards as the federal government.  It's pointless to have a federal government that can't restrict free speech if every state in the union were to do so, for example.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 18, 2009)

Turns out the guy is a Ron Paul supporter and he met with the cops before hand and was assigned some cops to, in his words, protect his rights and his gun.


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > cunclusion said:
> ...



Because it's illegal in those places and legal where the proetestor was, dumbfuck.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> The lunatic fringe of the right wing is getting more and more extreme...fed by the ravings of Beck, Hannity, and FoxNews
> 
> Sooner or later there will be violence.



How is saying what they've been saying for years getting more and more extreme?

There already has been violence. When union thugs beat the crap out of Conservative protestors. Where was your outrage then?


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > The lunatic fringe of the right wing is getting more and more extreme...fed by the ravings of Beck, Hannity, and FoxNews
> ...



Chrissy the shitstain thinks those protestors deserve the beatings.


----------



## xsited1 (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Protesters Carrying Rifle Outside Obama Rally



They're protecting Obama.  God Bless them.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 18, 2009)

So is there any evidence that these are actual right wingers? it's not difficult to pretend to mislead people.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 18, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> So is there any evidence that these are actual right wingers? it's not difficult to pretend to mislead people.


No, it isn't...just like with your quote above about union "thugs" beating people up...it's very easy to mislead people.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Turns out the guy is a Ron Paul supporter and he met with the cops before hand and was assigned some cops to, in his words, protect his rights and his gun.


so, he was a responsible citizen and did what was needed to assure security that he was not a threat


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> so, he was a responsible citizen and did what was needed to assure security that he was not a threat



But that doesnt paint the picture of the violent lunatics the left wants.


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > so, he was a responsible citizen and did what was needed to assure security that he was not a threat
> ...



It seems, at least over the last few days, that anyone who doesn't worship the Ossiah is a dangerous threat.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 18, 2009)

OldRocks,
If you are going to give me a negative rep, you could have given it for incorrect information or for being uncivil.  Instead, you give me a bad rep because you disagreed with me. It just goes to show how petty you are.  There was nothing incorrect or idiotic about my post. 

Here is my post:  "They had a right to carry arms. They broke no laws. I don't see what the problem is."

I stand by that post. If you can prove me wrong, then do it.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> OldRocks,
> If you are going to give me a negative rep, you could have given it for incorrect information or for being uncivil.  Instead, you give me a bad rep because you disagreed with me. It just goes to show how petty you are.  There was nothing incorrect or idiotic about my post.
> 
> Here is my post:  "They had a right to carry arms. They broke no laws. I don't see what the problem is."
> ...


oldrocksinthehead only does that to those with LESS rep power thanh him
it wont be long before you have more


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Nobody deserves to be beaten, but when did that happen ?


----------



## Richard-H (Aug 18, 2009)

The Constitution cites 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble'. Clearly the inclusion of the word 'peaceably' indicates that the people do not have the right to assemble non-peacefully.

Carrying weapons concealed or unconcealed to a political rally or protest constitutes a non-peaceful armed mob - not a peaceful demonstaration.

The message that these idiots conveyed was clear - their action were intended as a threat to the freely and legally elected President of the United States and to Democracy. Not to mention creating a huge potential public safety hazard.

On a practical basis, allowing people to carry automatic weapons to rallys just outside of a Presidential venue creates a situation where a large number of extremely well armed and coordinated militants could easily launch an overwehlming attack against the President.

It's my not-so-humble opinion that everyone that is known to have or does carry weapons to any Presidential venue or associated rally should be arrested and charged with sedition.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. 

I just think it was an incredibly stupid thing to do.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


there was a man beaten in St Louis by SEIU thugs


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> >
> > Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.
> >
> ...



Oh, if you're disturbed by THAT... you're just not going TO BELIEVE what Nature has planned to cure this problem...  Join me in begging the Left to stop the insanity...  Help me try to reason with the unreasonable... Let us unite to work towards shutting down the subversion of our nations founding principles and return her to her stable, principled moorings... to preclude a need of a natural correction.

It might work and wouldn't that be just lovely?


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 18, 2009)

Richard-H said:


> The Constitution cites 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble'. Clearly the inclusion of the word 'peaceably' indicates that the people do not have the right to assemble non-peacefully.
> 
> Carrying weapons concealed or unconcealed to a political rally or protest constitutes a non-peaceful armed mob - not a peaceful demonstaration.
> 
> ...



Arrested and charged with sedition for what exactly? Carrying a gun in a lawful manner does not constitute sedition. How do you arrive at that conclusion?


----------



## Yurt (Aug 18, 2009)

hjmick said:


> > Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.
> >
> > "In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."
> 
> ...



true dat


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> ... Sooner or later there will be violence.



Probably... as that is Nature's way.

Eventually, the Americans will realize that its time to defend against Leftist subversion; which will be triggered by the Left taking a violent turn... and that will unleash the rage and nothing will stop it, until such time that there remains not a single living human being who is willing or able to express a leftist 'feeling'...

Now as for ME... I'm asking you idiots to just shut the fuck up and turn from your idiocy...

Stop the madness... 

PLEASE...  

Don't do it...

STOP!

What more could a person that will not submit to your idiocy do?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2009)

What rightist rage are you talking about?  Certainly not the pipsqueaking at the town halls?  Threatened with jailing for disruption, you all calmed down pretty quickly.  And some form of government payer is going to go through.

Now demographically, you are generally old, white, male, and dying out.  One out of three voters is you.  In three election cyles, Hispanics alone will equal you.  In six election cycles, you will be one out of five?  What rightist rage?  Not going to happen.

Come to think about it, if it had been leftists from the late 1960s and early 1970s coming to those town hall meetings, they would have beat the crap out of you then beat the crap out of the cops when they showed up.  That crowd was a bad crowd for sure.  Of course, they are all old now but still could beat the crap out of you guys at the town hall meetings.  Why didn't they?  They know you aren't important.


----------



## Zona (Aug 18, 2009)

Xenophon said:


> Sounds like a bunch of idiots to me.



We here in Arizona have something called dry heat...it does things to you..


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 18, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> You should temporarily lose your right to bear arms if you are near the President.
> 
> When the President is no longer in your vicinity, you can carry on shooting Old Milwaukee cans off your fence post until the cows come home.





The most idiotic thing I have read on the boards this year.  You give up rights to no man.


----------



## nia588 (Aug 18, 2009)

next we'll be seeing them riding in on horses.

these people are starting to remind me of thugs from the old west.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

nia588 said:


> next we'll be seeing them riding in on horses.
> 
> these people are starting to remind me of thugs from the old west.



Oooo. I like your avatar


----------



## Zona (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > It is not a "clear threat".. it is a demonstration and expression of the rights they hold dear... there is no correlation between a law abiding citizen carrying a weapon in demonstration and some 'lunatic' trying some forceful action against the President
> ...



This all ends when the secret service decides what the parameters are for guns being carried like this.  When they say no guns anywhere near where the president is, that is it.  At that point, it wont be a second amendment issue, you will be locked up for breaking the law.  Period.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2009)

Ah, but they are rightist thugs with automatic weapons.  Still, they ain't nothing.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Zona said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like a bunch of idiots to me.
> ...


so thats your excuse


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 18, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



Well, Chrissy isn't as bright as the barrel of any of those firearms... but what we can be sure of, is that there will be no beatings of any protesters in Phoenix.

Such intimidation is reserved for locations where the carrying of a firearm is 'illegal'...

Which tells any non-idiot all they need to know about why such laws exist in the first place.

Big tough 'Union MEN!' aren't prone to intimidate 5' tall, grey headed old ladies... who happen to be carrying a .45 caliber APC...  

Of course, there's no reason why the Union thugs couldn't carry their OWN .45 caliber APC...  Right?  

Which Chrissy and comrades would claim would ONLY INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF VIOLENCE...

But here's the thing... Violence is a usually a function of people who don't BELIEVE that they're going to get their ass beat... they pop off at the mouth as if they're immune from it, until someone crushes their skull with a bat.

That same person will likely not be found talking shit again...

Now that same goes double for those carrying firearms...  usually they understand what those things DO... and they don't want to have that done to them.  

So while the Union thugs could arm themselves... agaisnt the tide of senior citizens determined to prevent them from empowering themselves at the Seniors expense... they don't want to get shot... and they damn well KNOW that where they are found imparting violence upon an armed senior... they're gonna BE SHOT!  

Thus the axiom: An Armed Society is a polite society...


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

My state is open-carry, and has complete state pre-emption of all gun laws.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 18, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> What rightist rage are you talking about?  ...



Well keep pushin douschbag and I expect you'll find out; the bad news sis is that to find out, you have to release it.  

And neither of us want to go there...  

So I'm asking ya... Nicely...  PLEASE... Don't keep pushing to usurp our rights... Stop trying to implement a tyrannical scheme...  

PLEASE!

DON'T!

STOP!

Now I ask, because I like my life... I don't want to see it all evaporate into a mind bending merciless civil war...  but if it does... I don't want to suffer the pangs of guilt, in knowing that I didn't do everything within my means to stop it...  So that I can go about the inenviable task of ridding this planet of the virulent human infection known as Leftism and the Leftists who carry it.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> My state is open-carry, and has complete state pre-emption of all gun laws.


you have your own, right?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Oh, if you're disturbed by THAT... you're just not going TO BELIEVE what Nature has planned to cure this problem...  Join me in begging the Left to stop the insanity...  Help me try to reason with the unreasonable... Let us unite to work towards shutting down the subversion of our nations founding principles and return her to her stable, principled moorings... to preclude a need of a natural correction.
> 
> It might work and wouldn't that be just lovely?



I'd have to say that in my opinion the problem of insanity does not lie solely with the left, but more appropriately with both the extreme left and the extreme right.  The unreasonable?  By that I would assume you mean those morons we have all elected to create the mess we have in Washington and by shutting down the subversion of our nation's founding principles, I would hope you mean by throwing those very same morons out of Washington and putting in honest, hard-working Americans who care more about this country than the greed and power that comes with political office... I'm for it!  Lead the way.

Immie


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > My state is open-carry, and has complete state pre-emption of all gun laws.
> ...



No. My father was going to give me one of his, but I think I'd rather find one on my own. I need something that is relatively easy to load and shoot (I'm a wuss when it comes to hand-strength lol). 

Never considered this before, but do shooting ranges lease out guns to try ? I would hate to put that much into something I couldn't use...


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> My state is open-carry, and has complete state pre-emption of all gun laws.



Believe me, I have no problem with open-carry.  I simply don't think it is appropriate to carry weapons in this manner at a political event and especially not around the President of the United States.  Despite what those with whom I usually agree have stated here, the message is a clear threat not only to the President but also to peace and to the nation that I love.  

Are there times when revolt is appropriate?  Yes.  Is that time now?  Maybe.

But carrying those weapons around like chicken shit thugs trying to intimidate people who voice an opinion different than your own is not the responsible thing to do.

Immie


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


i bet they do
a local archery range rents bows and arrows


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

Oh, I live in a safe area and have a cop next door lol. But still...

I wanted one when I was traveling (did night work in some not so savory areas). The only problem was I went from state to state, so I was worried about having to deal with the laws and regulations (state or local). My last travel assignment was UBER secure (the Feds), and I wouldn't have been allowed on the property with a weapon, no matter how I carried it.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 18, 2009)

Zona said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > DiamondDave said:
> ...



And that point comes just that much closer to the unknowable point where the genie is released... and everything you've known is gone and cruelty which you can't even begin to imagine are an intrinsic part of your every waking hour.

Join me in asking the Left to stop...  As the only means to stop it is to convince the aggressor to desist from that aggreesion.

You can't prevent a war by stepping on the oppressed... at best all that will do is put it off... storing more rage... more angst and the laws of thermodynamics tend to discourage that where the goal is not a violent explosive release of stored energy.

So Join me in encouraging the Left to desist from their aggressive implementation of right usurping policy...

PLEASE...

DON'T! 

STOP!


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > My state is open-carry, and has complete state pre-emption of all gun laws.
> ...



Oh, I agree. And I think it's going to backfire on those of us who fully support the 2nd.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, if you're disturbed by THAT... you're just not going TO BELIEVE what Nature has planned to cure this problem...  Join me in begging the Left to stop the insanity...  Help me try to reason with the unreasonable... Let us unite to work towards shutting down the subversion of our nations founding principles and return her to her stable, principled moorings... to preclude a need of a natural correction.
> ...



His idea of begging the left to stop the insanity is citing that there are no leftist Americans over and over again while overtly hinting that sooner or later he's going to have to start busting caps in their asses.

This man is no patriot.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I kick ass in archery 

I used to shoot a lot. One of my earliest memories is Dad teaching me how to dismantle and clean his guns and rifles. He taught me to shoot; my little brother was never interested. 

I may have to learn all over again; everything Dad taught me (batting, kicking football, shooting, fishing) he taught me _right_ handed, and I'm a lefty lol.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Ease up. We're all in this together, ya know.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 18, 2009)

Publius, you mess with the Secret Service you are going to end up face down in the dust.  Think, huh?


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > My state is open-carry, and has complete state pre-emption of all gun laws.
> ...



Your position boils down to treat people like criminals before they actually do something, because someone might come down with a bad case of the stuck on stupid, and someone may get hurt.  That doesn't strike you as nanny state?  Did your parents ever rule you as guilty ahead of time, even though you hadn't actually done anything wrong? If so, did that make you mad? 

They didn't do anything wrong. Did some of them feed the stereotype that so many have about people with guns? They may have. I don't know as I was not there. Either way, take action if one of them breaks the law. 

I think a lot of people have gotten so used to the government enemas, that when they see some of their fellow Americans expressing their rights in a legal manner, even if it may be unpopular, a lot of people get fearful and start coming down on the law-abiding gun toters, instead of the government that has been crawling up everyone's butt.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Exercising a right doesn't mean it can't be a stupid thing to do in the context of the situation.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, if you're disturbed by THAT... you're just not going TO BELIEVE what Nature has planned to cure this problem...  Join me in begging the Left to stop the insanity...  Help me try to reason with the unreasonable... Let us unite to work towards shutting down the subversion of our nations founding principles and return her to her stable, principled moorings... to preclude a need of a natural correction.
> ...



Well there actually is no extreme right...  The proof of that is that the Left exists and is prospering... advancing.  If there were an extreme right, such would not have survived to a point where such advances were even conceivable, let alone, possible.



> The unreasonable?  By that I would assume you mean those morons we have all elected to create the mess we have in Washington and by shutting down the subversion of our nation's founding principles, I would hope you mean by throwing those very same morons out of Washington and putting in honest, hard-working Americans who care more about this country than the greed and power that comes with political office... I'm for it!  Lead the way.



By unreasonable, I mean those incapable of reason... OKA: Leftists...  

If removing legislators from office would solve the problem... there would be no problem.

Leftism is a virulent ideology which preys upon human weaknesses...  and it's slowly but steadily strengthened in the US culture to the point where such is now replete througout the US government.  Entrenched in the unelected bureaucracy... throughout acedemia and as a result... the only cure is to burn it out.

I'd prefer they simply turn from their subversion...  but of course they will not.

At this point we're being set up... in short order, we'll witness a catastrophe which will be said to require RADICAL ACTION... MARTIAL LAW... and major modifications to the rights of the individual and the power of Federal governance.

At that point, the US will step off into Civil War and it will be an awful thing... and it will be 100% the fault of those who caused it and they will pay dearly, wholly and completely... and this will prove in finality that stupidty comes with a heavy price and it serves no one's interests to tolerate such, in the name of 'tolerance,' not the least of which are the stupid.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

Hooboy.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


which is what many have said
then we find out the man in question went to the police to make sure his intentions were known
he was just following the law


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > BasicGreatGuy said:
> ...



There was more than one.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Your position boils down to treat people like criminals before they actually do something, because someone might come down with a bad case of the stuck on stupid, and someone may get hurt.  That doesn't strike you as nanny state?  Did your parents ever rule you as guilty ahead of time, even though you hadn't actually done anything wrong? If so, did that make you mad?
> 
> They didn't do anything wrong. Did some of them feed the stereotype that so many have about people with guns? They may have. I don't know as I was not there. Either way, take action if one of them breaks the law.
> 
> I think a lot of people have gotten so used to the government enemas, that when they see some of their fellow Americans expressing their rights in a legal manner, even if it may be unpopular, a lot of people get fearful and start coming down on the law-abiding gun toters, instead of the government that has been crawling up everyone's butt.



I don't think I have ever said they were criminals or that anything they were doing was illegal.  Stupid... yes.  A threat... yes, but never did I say what they were doing was illegal.  I have said that what they were doing was wrong and bad for America.

As for my parents ruling me guilty ahead of time, let me go one better than that.  I have been accused of a crime that I did not commit by the State of California.  Let me also tell you, that the motto that we all live by, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in the state's mind.

In this case these gunmen are not breaking the law.  They even have the legal right to be there, but just because I have the legal right to do something does not mean that I should do it.  These gunmen are attempting to send a message to the government and threaten the President.  I'm sorry, but that is not what I think Americans should be doing.  Seems more to me like what would be done in the Middle East.  

Have we sunk that far?  Are we becoming the barbarians whom we are at war with?

Immie


----------



## Zona (Aug 18, 2009)

I heard a guy on the radio today say, if me as a black man came to a Bush speech with 6 of my black friends...armed in Arizona, I wonder what would have happened. 

It is an interesting question.  Black GUYS armed at a Bush speech.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > My state is open-carry, and has complete state pre-emption of all gun laws.
> ...



Well, it occurs to me that what protects the President, to the extent of their means are men with guns...  most of whom it is a natural certainty, stand wholly against everything this President stands for, ideologically...  and no one seems to be wetting their pants that those men are a danger to the President.

Why is that do ya suppose?

Now let's assume for the sake of argument that the guy walking down the street openly carrying his firearm... who's been convicted by the anti-Americans as a dangerous person because of his firearm, is a guy that retired from the SS Presidential Detail the day before.

On Tuesday he's a highly trained professional whose skills, particularly his skills with a firearm protected the President...  but on Wednesday... he's just a nut with a gun.

People who carry firearms know the ramifications of those weapons and they take their responsibilities seriously... and they seriously don't want to use their firearms, just marginally less than they want some one to abuse them, or threaten their lives, their rights or their means to pursue the fulfillment of their lives.

They're carrying their fire arms to prevent people from threatening them...  it's a sign... and it says:

PLEASE!

DON'T!

STOP!


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

Zona said:


> I heard a guy on the radio today say, if me as a black man came to a Bush speech with 6 of my black friends...armed in Arizona, I wonder what would have happened.
> 
> It is an interesting question.  Black GUYS armed at a Bush speech.



and yet ANOTHER whiney liberal punk playing the race card.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Zona said:


> I heard a guy on the radio today say, if me as a black man came to a Bush speech with 6 of my black friends...armed in Arizona, I wonder what would have happened.
> 
> It is an interesting question.  Black GUYS armed at a Bush speech.


nice setup, fuckwad
but it was just another FAIL


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > I heard a guy on the radio today say, if me as a black man came to a Bush speech with 6 of my black friends...armed in Arizona, I wonder what would have happened.
> ...



Perhaps, but I doubt we'd be seeing as many defending their right to carry.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


if they did what the ONE guy at the rally did, then i would
btw, it was ONLY one guy in AZ
the other guy was in NH
and neither of them caused any trouble


----------



## Richard-H (Aug 18, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution cites 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble'. Clearly the inclusion of the word 'peaceably' indicates that the people do not have the right to assemble non-peacefully.
> ...



How do I arrive at that conclusion? Are you kidding?

Try rereading my post. Take it SLOWLY. Think a bit about every sentence before moving on to the next. Perhaps the second to last statement interrupts the logic of the argument - it's little off on a tangent, but try real hard and maybe with a little effort you'll get it.


----------



## Zona (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



There was only one in arizona?

Dozen Armed With Guns Protest Obama Speech
About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the Phoenix convention center where President Obama was giving a speech. 

Dozen Armed With Guns Protest Obama Speech - Political News - FOXNews.com

Way to fact check..

PHOENIX -- *About a dozen people carrying guns*, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday -- the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > My state is open-carry, and has complete state pre-emption of all gun laws.
> ...



Ya right, remind us who was intimidated? The only intimidation going on is by the left and Main Stream news trying to paint the lawful carrying of weapons as some kind of threat. Once again retard, the Secret Service, which is task with the Presidents protection has stated these people are NO THREAT AT ALL, they do not even impact the security or procedures the Secret Service employ.

Remind us again how you are opposed to large Union thugs and club wielding black panthers from intimidating people at polling booths and town hall meetings.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Zona said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


ah, you got me on that one


congrats, you are a winner on the interwebs


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

Zona said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



I was gonna say...


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


yeah, i know, i made a mistake
it happens rarely 

i was refering to the "one with military" and forgot the other
my bad


----------



## Richard-H (Aug 18, 2009)

Let me make this clear:

*These people carry weapons were breaking the law.* 

Once again - the constitution states that people have the right to PEACEFUL assembly. Carry weapons to a political rally constitutes an armed mob that is a clear threat to the peace. They ARE NOT PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLING. 

They are also infringing on the rights of everyone else who wants to assemble peacefully - because any intelligent person should construe that armed persons at a demonstration are armed for the purpose of non-peaceful actions and constitute a very real threat to the peace. Thereby violating everyone elses right to peaceful assembly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2009)

Zona said:


> I heard a guy on the radio today say, if me as a black man came to a Bush speech with 6 of my black friends...armed in Arizona, I wonder what would have happened.
> 
> It is an interesting question.  Black GUYS armed at a Bush speech.



Nothing would have happened if they were in the appropriate area as these people were. Pretty simple concept. What I want to know is what would have happened if the KKK had taken clubs and "guarded" polling booths like the Black Panthers did, would they have been left alone and the Government dropped the case of intimidation against them?


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Were you thinking of the one who was interviewed?


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 18, 2009)

Arizona gun laws are found mostly in Title 13, Chapter 31 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.[6] There is no registration or licensing of non-NFA firearms in Arizona. In fact, Section 13-3108 subsection B prohibits any political subdivision of the state from enacting any laws requiring licensing or registration.[7] According to state law, a person must be 18 years of age to purchase any non-NFA firearm from any source; however, there is a federal age limit of 21 years on handgun purchases from federal firearms licensees. Generally, a person must be 18 years of age to possess a firearm or carry one openly, with such exceptions as are described below.
Gun laws in the United States (by state) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have in our state for as long as I have lived here been able to carry a firearm openly as long as it meets state requirements.  While these people  IMO did not  exercise the best judgement  in bringing these weapons near the President of the United States they were  according to state law weel within their rights to do so.   This issue is more one of people  not  exercising good judgement when it comes to being near the  President with firearms, I say this not because  it represents a danger to the life of the President because if it had these people would be in the Maricopa County Jail courtsey of the Secret Service.  It represents a danger to the lives of the people who made the choice to actually  exercise their rights to carry there firearms  into that situation in the first place, in other words they were  putting their heads in the cross hairs of  a Sniper. So while these people were  not breaking any laws they were perhaps  not using the good sense that god gave them in this case to leave those weapons home for their own safety.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2009)

Richard-H said:


> Let me make this clear:
> 
> *These people carry weapons were breaking the law.*
> 
> ...



Straight up LIE. There is NO LAW in that State that makes being in public in PUBLIC areas, a crime while carrying a weapon openly. NONE. NOR is there ANY Federal Law outlawing it. NONE, not even one law. Funny how in our early days people went to "Peaceful" assemblies armed all the time. Now all of a sudden DUMB FUCKS like you claim they are breaking a law that does not EXIST.

Once again stupid shit, the Secret Service has stated these people are ZERO threat, that they do not impact the security of the President in any way.

Remind us again how the simple presence of a weapon constitutes a threat, then why are police openly armed, the Secret Service, the marshal's service, the FBI? If as you claim the mere presence of a firearm is intimidation and makes a gathering unpeaceful, then why are Government personnel allowed to openly be armed in PUBLIC?

Provide for us any one in those crowds that was threatened or intimidated? YOU are part of the problem.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


yes
the one with the so called "assault rifle"


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Arizona gun laws are found mostly in Title 13, Chapter 31 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.[6] There is no registration or licensing of non-NFA firearms in Arizona. In fact, Section 13-3108 subsection B prohibits any political subdivision of the state from enacting any laws requiring licensing or registration.[7] According to state law, a person must be 18 years of age to purchase any non-NFA firearm from any source; however, there is a federal age limit of 21 years on handgun purchases from federal firearms licensees. Generally, a person must be 18 years of age to possess a firearm or carry one openly, with such exceptions as are described below.
> Gun laws in the United States (by state) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> We have in our state for as long as I have lived here been able to carry a firearm openly as long as it meets state requirements.  While these people  IMO did not  exercise the best judgement  in bringing these weapons near the President of the United States they were  according to state law weel within their rights to do so.   This issue is more one of people  not  exercising good judgement when it comes to being near the  President with firearms, I say this not because  it represents a danger to the life of the President because if it had these people would be in the Maricopa County Jail courtsey of the Secret Service.  It represents a danger to the lives of the people who made the choice to actually  exercise their rights to carry there firearms  into that situation in the first place, in other words they were  putting their heads in the cross hairs of  a Sniper. So while these people were  not breaking any laws they were perhaps  not using the good sense that god gave them in this case to leave those weapons home for their own safety.



Ya cause after all we should only exercise our rights when it is convenient for the Government right?


----------



## Zona (Aug 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > Let me make this clear:
> ...



Gunny, this all ends if the secret service decides to put up parameters for carrying guns near the president.

If they decide to stop them at point A (say two miles close to the president) then its not a second amendment issue, its against the law, plain and simple, agree?

Oh and what was your MOS...?  Just curious.  Nice to meet you, fellow vet.


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona gun laws are found mostly in Title 13, Chapter 31 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.[6] There is no registration or licensing of non-NFA firearms in Arizona. In fact, Section 13-3108 subsection B prohibits any political subdivision of the state from enacting any laws requiring licensing or registration.[7] According to state law, a person must be 18 years of age to purchase any non-NFA firearm from any source; however, there is a federal age limit of 21 years on handgun purchases from federal firearms licensees. Generally, a person must be 18 years of age to possess a firearm or carry one openly, with such exceptions as are described below.
> ...



Not what I'm saying  Gunny, they can exercise their rights anytime and it's clear crystal clear that they were  NOT breaking any laws and further were exercising their rights to do so. However, what I did say was when they are near the President, the only lives that are in danger when they do something such as you saw yesterday were their own.  Also, had they been a threat , rights or not  I'm sure the  Secret Service would have seen to it that they would not have posed a threat. So in the end this issue is one of people IMO that perhaps did not exercise good judgement on their behalf. As for it being illegal, or  anythig of that nature, well that's complete nonsense.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Zona said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Richard-H said:
> ...


uh, from the sounds of the story, they already did, cause these guys were in THAT zone


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Your position boils down to treat people like criminals before they actually do something, because someone might come down with a bad case of the stuck on stupid, and someone may get hurt.  That doesn't strike you as nanny state?  Did your parents ever rule you as guilty ahead of time, even though you hadn't actually done anything wrong? If so, did that make you mad?
> ...



I think you are making some leaps you shouldn't Immie.  And yes, sometimes I don't believe we should do certain things, even if those things may be legal. I agree with you there. I don't see this story as one of those times though.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Don't bother with facts he is incapable of understanding them as is Navy1960 as well. Next we will hear how where ever the President drives the cops and the Secret Service are free to arrest and disarm law abiding citizens for simply being on that street. You know when the Citizenry doesn't even know where he will be driving till he does.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



When have I ever supported the club wielding black panthers.  I was as upset at them as everyone else and I despise the unions, well, at least today's version of the unions.

As for the Secret Service saying there was no threat?  Yeah, well, just another set of government officials lying out of their asses.

And if you think those pricks weren't there to intimidate their opponents your IQ is below Sillybobo's

Immie


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


navy is a good guy
maybe he hasnt seen that one guy had already talked to the police and they were in an area where it was allowed


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Every US citizen has the right to use their weapons against ANYONE 'if the need be...' where that 'need be'  that such a person threatens their life or the life of others in their immediate presence.

What would an exception to this rightful and just rule look like?

Can you explain this?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Every US citizen has the right to use their weapons against ANYONE 'if the need be...' where that 'need be' a result that such a person threatens their life or the life of others in their immediate presence.
> 
> What would an exception to this rightful and just rule look like?
> 
> Can you explain this?



How is carrying weapons with the intent of intimidating your opponents and silencing them protecting their lives or the lives of others in their immediate presence?  That is not what these people were attempting to do.  They were attempting to interfere with the free speech rights of others who happened to disagree with them.  They were trying to bully others who happened to disagree with them and they were in fact putting the lives of everyone around them in danger.

This is no exception to the rule that you mentioned.  This was not for their own protection.  It was used as a tool to intimidate people that support the President's attempt to force this piece of shit legislation down our throats.  Whether or not I agree with the side that these people are taking (and if they are opponents of the bill I do agree) I believe that it is wrong to interfere with the rights of their opponents and someone standing near me with a rifle  collaborating with people that are demonstrating against what I believe are definitely going to intimidate me and make me think twice about speaking out.



DiveCon said:


> navy is a good guy
> maybe he hasnt seen that one guy had already talked to the police and they were in an area where it was allowed



DC,

I don't think that the fact that this person had talked to the police makes a damned bit of difference.  He is still intimidating to the crowd.  He is still a threat and he is still making an implied threat to the government.  That is what they were there for and anyone who claims otherwise, well, I'm sorry to say I believe is either a liar or an idiot.

Immie


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 18, 2009)

(1) Under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, officers and agents of the Secret Service are authorized to -

(C) make arrests without warrant for any offense against the
United States committed in their presence, or for any felony
cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have
reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has
committed or is committing such felony;

Secret Service Protection Law - U.S. Government Info/Resources

As I said BEFORE if the Secret Service  had reason to believe these  people had  broken any laws they would have been arrested.  The fact they were carrying weapons DID NOT break any laws!!  If this is too contrary to the facts as some would like to think I am not aware of as  I happen to carry a weapon in this state then they of course have a right to disagree.  What I did say though is that these people having exercised that right did so at their own peril and this issue has nothing at all to do with people a not being  allowed to carry weapons near the President , which they clearly are in this state. If they had represented a danger then as I stated in my posting above then they would have been arrested and the Secret Service would not have needed a warrant to do so, that is a fact.  While some may not agree with me that these people are not exercising good judgment  in doing so near the President , then so be it, it does not mean I disagree with their rights to carry those weapons. That is a personal assesment.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Every US citizen has the right to use their weapons against ANYONE 'if the need be...' where that 'need be' a result that such a person threatens their life or the life of others in their immediate presence.
> ...



Im sorry but while I only wanted to respond to one aspect of your post I am forced by the RULES to quote the entirety of your post and I was forced to report you for having altered these TWO posts... by the same RULE!

How does carrying a fire arm intimidate a political opponent, if that opponent intends you no malice?

All the firearms say is: 'if you threaten my life, or those around me, I'll kill ya.'  

Now I can see where if the opposition's goal is intimidation that the firearms would tend to roll that back.  But that's what they're designed to do...

Is it your position that the President was there to initimidate them?


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Well Dive I had not seen that , but  you know still in Arizona no matter where they are they can carry these weapons in the open as long as they meet state law.  That is perhaps whey the Secret Service has no issue with it. Still though is why I had said, thay these people in carrying these weapons  by doing so were not putting anyones life in danger but themselves.  So all this hype over this issue is nothing but nonsense. The Secret Service would have had thse people in Joe's Motel had they thought for a moment they represented  or thought they were about to commit a crime against the President.  Again,  while some may think that carrying weapons anywhere  is fine, and  I respect their opinion, my opinion is that some places carrying a weapon may not  be appropriate i.e. to a Presidential rally, or my daughters college graduation.  It's a matter of opinion on that one.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

If they had wanted to intimidate him they would have carried a noose.


----------



## Zona (Aug 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Great post..Oh and I see you know about Sheriff Joe..


----------



## Navy1960 (Aug 18, 2009)

Zona said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



How can you live in Arizona and not know about Joe? Say what you will about the man , love him or hate him he has no issues getting re-elected.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


i agree, it was a stupid stunt
and i have already said that they should be ready for the secret service public rectal exam if they did think they posed a security risk


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Stupid stunt for a stupid president--appropriate I'd say.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Stupid stunt for a stupid president--appropriate I'd say.



Thought it was only about exercising their rights and had nothing to do with Obama?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Stupid stunt for a stupid president--appropriate I'd say.
> ...



It depends on wh oyou talk to, Emma---seems as tho there are some differing opinions here.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Im sorry but while I only wanted to respond to one aspect of your post I am forced by the RULES to quote the entirety of your post and I was forced to report you for having altered these TWO posts... by the same RULE!
> 
> How does carrying a fire arm intimidate a political opponent, if that opponent intends you no malice?
> 
> ...



No problem on reporting me.  I saw your thread on the rule and I do not believe that I have violated the spirit of that rule.  If Gunny or another moderator thinks I have and cares to warn me about it, I will follow their request.  Until such a time, I will with long quotes remove unnecessary parts of a quote if I feel compelled to do so.  



> All the firearms say is: 'if you threaten my life, or those around me, I'll kill ya.'



I disagree.  People use firearms all the time when no one is threatening them.  Use them to kill too.  

RetiredGySgt lambasted me about the black panthers (which by the way he didn't know what he was talking about because I spoke out against them as well) who were intimidating white voters in Philadelphia.  One of those guys held a billy club and although as far as I know he didn't say a word to white voters as they approached, the meaning was clear.  What if he had a gun?  Do you think the meaning would have been any more clearer?

Those people were there with the intention of intimidating opponents.  That was why they brought the weapons in the first place.  They had a message they wanted to send out and that was exactly what they did.  They got their message out loud and clear.

I did not once state that the weapons should be taken from those at the protest.  I did state that they should not have been brought in the first place.  There are times and places for wielding a weapon and IMHO that was neither the time nor the place.  They had the right to carry those weapons, but as I said earlier, with rights come responsibilities.  

Immie


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Im sorry but while I only wanted to respond to one aspect of your post I am forced by the RULES to quote the entirety of your post and I was forced to report you for having altered these TWO posts... by the same RULE!
> ...



Pure speculation


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree.  People use firearms all the time when no one is threatening them.  Use them to kill too.
> ...



Oh come on duckie, why else would you bring a gun to a political rally?

You just happened to be walking down the street carrying a rifle and fell into the rally?  Give me a break.

BTW: in this thread there have been several people that stated the weapons were loaded.  I didn't see whether or not they were and how can you tell by looking at a rifle from a far?

Immie


----------



## Zona (Aug 18, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



Good point.  If you run against him you will be arrested, but you are correct, he does continue to get re elected.


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I know people who have C&C permits that carry their weapon all the time.  even to the mall.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



How about to bring attention to yourself ?
Unless you have something to back up you claim, all you are doing is speculating.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



That's right... bring attention to yourself so as to scare the shit out of the guy who was about to get down on his knees and praise Obama and Healthcare Reform.

Immie


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> As for the Secret Service saying there was no threat?  Yeah, well, just another set of government officials lying out of their asses.



The secret service isn't going to tip their hand and claim those people were a threat. That's ALL they need to do. I'd be concerned if they had responded other than they did. They play their hand close, and besides... what do you think would happen if they indicated they WERE concerned or considered those people a threat? 

Does anyone here really expect them to do anything but play it down?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



do you look into people's minds and see their motivation ?
A martian mind-meld sorta thing?


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



True.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Well, if your going to get silly then I would say this has gone on long enough.  

About all I can say to you is that in this case, you are naive.

Immie


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Using your logic, a man carrying a gun anywhere in Arizona is threatening all those in his proximity. That would be paranoia.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


that would be a VULCAN mind meld
LOL


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



What about the confrontational aspect of a political rally such as this don't you understand?  Intimidation was a factor here and your denial of it, doesn't change that at all.

Immie


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> RetiredGySgt lambasted me about the black panthers (which by the way he didn't know what he was talking about because I spoke out against them as well) who were intimidating white voters in Philadelphia.  One of those guys held a billy club and *although as far as I know he didn't say a word to white voters as they approached*, the meaning was clear.  What if he had a gun?  Do you think the meaning would have been any more clearer?



I've seen quite a few defend these people who brought guns to this event in AZ. Do you happen to know if any of them called for the guy you mention above to be prosecuted?


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



what if someone brought a gun to PROTECT Obama, given the vibe of the past few weeks?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 18, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Then they would be idiots.


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Ethel Kennedy may not agree.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> A martian mind-meld sorta thing?



Hey! I resemble that remark!


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



What is it about pretending to know people's motives that you dont understand. I supposed you also believe that a woman dressed in sexy clothes is asking to be raped ?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Nope but she sure as hell is looking for attention.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt lambasted me about the black panthers (which by the way he didn't know what he was talking about because I spoke out against them as well) who were intimidating white voters in Philadelphia.  One of those guys held a billy club and *although as far as I know he didn't say a word to white voters as they approached*, the meaning was clear.  What if he had a gun?  Do you think the meaning would have been any more clearer?
> ...



No, I don't know of anyone having done so and quite frankly I would hope no one did.  As I said, it is not illegal to do so simply irresponsible.



elvis3577 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Now why in the world would anyone want to do that?  

Actually, that thought did occur to me.  I have not seen any news media coverage of this and it is, of course, possible that these guys were there to intimidate those who opposed the President's plan.  

That doesn't change anything at all.  They were still there to intimidate their opponents.  That is how thugs work.  That is not how America works.

Immie


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



which is NOT the same as rape-----ty for making my point


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> What is it about pretending to know people's motives that you dont understand. I supposed you also believe that a woman dressed in sexy clothes is asking to be raped ?



Nope, but she might be looking to get laid.  

Immie


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > What is it about pretending to know people's motives that you dont understand. I supposed you also believe that a woman dressed in sexy clothes is asking to be raped ?
> ...



Which AGAIN is not the same thing as rape------dismissed.
Go back to mind reading school


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Huh?

The point is that the woman is dressing sexy for a purpose --- to bring attention to themselves.

These men were carrying guns for a reason --- to draw attention to themselves.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



I will just as soon as you stop being so naive.

Immie


----------



## txlonghorn (Aug 18, 2009)

Chris said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > > PHOENIX  About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday  the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.
> ...



YEP...kinda like the riots after rodney king.  How about that lunatic from the left that shot Reagan?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Do cops intimidate you too ?


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

txlonghorn said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I thought Hinckly shot Reagan to get into Jodie Foster's pants.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



maybe---now one knows. Lots of people think they are pretty damn good mind readers tho.


----------



## txlonghorn (Aug 18, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> txlonghorn said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



  so he was fed by the ravings of a leftwing actress that really wasn't all that to begin with.  How sad!!!


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Depends on the cop and the attitude he/she takes.

Immie


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



LMAO------so the simple fact that they carry a weapon ISN'T a deciding factor ?


----------



## elvis (Aug 18, 2009)

txlonghorn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > txlonghorn said:
> ...



sick thing is he got obsessed with her from watching Taxi driver.  Jodie played a 12 year old hooker in the film.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Well, dillo, you haven't provided any sound information that would persuade me to change my mind.  As I said, only an idiot would not believe they were there with the express intention of intimidating their opponents and only a liar would state that they weren't knowing full well that they were.  Your not an idiot and I have never known you to lie, so I'd have to think your just playing games and I'm getting bored.  

Got any more games?

Immie


----------



## txlonghorn (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



The only cop that intimidates me is one that DOESN'T carry a gun.  He's probably got a taser and he AINT afraid to use.  

DON'T TASE ME BRO!!!!


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



LMAO---never said it was.

Attitude has its place as well.  And those guys were there with attitude.

Immie


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I'm glad we determined that the attitude was what bothered you.


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2HipedgM3I]YouTube - Spiders On Drugs[/ame]


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Emma said:


> If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
> 
> YouTube - Spiders On Drugs



as long as they have a good attitude, I ain't intimidated by em.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



With gun comes attitude.  

It is a sad world in which we allow our opponents to use threats to achieve their purpose and don't tell me that the presence of a gun at a political rally is not a threat.

Immie


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Hogwash---you need to get around some people who own and carry.


----------



## garyd (Aug 18, 2009)

Well I haven't read all of the posts I haven't the time but after 2 to 3 pages it was pretty obvious everyone is missing the Obvious.  Who are the gunning for? NO one given the increasing presence Union thugs attempting to intimidate the opposition at these rallys and the beating of and subsequent trip to the emergency room for an African-American conservative I'd say the weapons are there for defense against the Union goon squads that are operating in support of Obama.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

garyd said:


> Well I haven't read all of the posts I haven't the time but after 2 to 3 pages it was pretty obvious everyone is missing the Obvious.  Who are the gunning for? NO one given the increasing presence Union thugs attempting to intimidate the opposition at these rallys and the beating of and subsequent trip to the emergency room for an African-American conservative I'd say the weapons are there for defense against the Union goon squads that are operating in support of Obama.



another possiblity but Immie is the only one who knows their true motives.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Owning and carrying is not (as I have said in this very thread)... I repeat, not the problem.  Carrying at a politically charged rally is the problem.  There is only one reason to bring a weapon to such an event and that is to intimidate your opponents.  It is an implied threat and it was intentional.

Immie


----------



## Emma (Aug 18, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI]YouTube - Cows with guns[/ame]


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 18, 2009)

Richard-H said:


> Let me make this clear:
> 
> *These people carry weapons were breaking the law.*
> 
> ...



So you can do nothing but protest, but if you have a gun its now violent? If they are waving guns around, firing bullets, or hitting people with the gun, yeah you could say they are not peaceably assemble.

You can't possibly argue that a situation where no one is hurt or injured is somehow violent. Your position makes absolutely no sense.

And what statute does this violate exactly? You claim its illegal and point to the first amendment. The constitution doesnt say it's illegal to non-peaceably assemble. Only that we have a right to peaceable assembly. Unless there is a specific statute banning it, it cant possibly be illegal.


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 18, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




which one did you interview ? ( or is this another assumption? )


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

garyd said:


> Well I haven't read all of the posts I haven't the time but after 2 to 3 pages it was pretty obvious everyone is missing the Obvious.  Who are the gunning for? NO one given the increasing presence Union thugs attempting to intimidate the opposition at these rallys and the beating of and subsequent trip to the emergency room for an African-American conservative I'd say the weapons are there for defense against the Union goon squads that are operating in support of Obama.





dilloduck said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > Well I haven't read all of the posts I haven't the time but after 2 to 3 pages it was pretty obvious everyone is missing the Obvious.  Who are the gunning for? NO one given the increasing presence Union thugs attempting to intimidate the opposition at these rallys and the beating of and subsequent trip to the emergency room for an African-American conservative I'd say the weapons are there for defense against the Union goon squads that are operating in support of Obama.
> ...



Well, even in that case, admitted as a possibility by dillo, the weapons were being used to intimidate.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Are you being obtuse on purpose?

Immie


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 18, 2009)

Whats funny about this is, wasnt it Obama saying he would bring a gun to a knife fight so to speak? He said:



> "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I&#8217;ve seen Eagles fans."



Obama: âIf they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gunâ | Politicususa.com

if he doesnt want to see guns at a protest against the government, then he should lead by example


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> Whats funny about this is, wasnt it Obama saying he would bring a gun to a knife fight so to speak? He said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure he has even spoken out about this nor do I even care.

I simply have a problem with the use of threats (and maybe dillo doesn't see a weapon as a threat but most humans do) in order to achieve one's political goals.

I always respect your opinion Avatar, so tell me, do you see these guys as using the rifles to intimidate their opponents or were they just carrying rifles to a political rally because they felt like it?

Immie


----------



## garyd (Aug 18, 2009)

They were carrying rifles to try to keep people from being beaten up by union thugs. Seems to have worked.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 18, 2009)

garyd said:


> They were carrying rifles to try to keep people from being beaten up by union thugs. Seems to have worked.



Bet 'cha, dillo doesn't accuse you of trying to be a mind reader! 

Nor do I believe that union thugs would be scared of the guy, they'd simply come up behind him and sucker punch him as they usually do with people who oppose them.

I doubt you'll ever be able to convince me that those guys didn't go to the rally with the express intention of intimidating their opponents.  Even if the guy swore on a stack of Bibles, I'd not believe him.

Immie


----------



## garyd (Aug 19, 2009)

You might manage it worth one guy but not with three or four - especially of they know what they are doing. Even with one guy it isn't that easy if the character in question is paying attention.


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Bet 'cha, dillo doesn't accuse you of trying to be a mind reader!
> 
> Nor do I believe that union thugs would be scared of the guy, they'd simply come up behind him and sucker punch him as they usually do with people who oppose them.
> 
> ...


In the past they intimidated with white hoods, and burned crosses. Now they are intimidating with hanging nooses in public places and bringing loaded assault rifles to Presidential events.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> In the past they intimidated with white hoods, and burned crosses. Now they are intimidating with hanging nooses in public places and bringing loaded assault rifles to Presidential events.



You do know that the guy who brought his AR-15 is Black, right?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

hjmick said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > In the past they intimidated with white hoods, and burned crosses. Now they are intimidating with hanging nooses in public places and bringing loaded assault rifles to Presidential events.
> ...


marc is an idiot
of course he doesnt know


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

Yes, that was ONE guy, after many white guys did it. The whole thing with that black guy was staged...he had a fake interview out in public with this local radio talk show guy that was also an avid gun supporter and was also strapped at the time as well.

I know the full story.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Yes, that was ONE guy, after many white guys did it. The whole thing with that black guy was staged...he had a fake interview out in public with this local radio talk show guy that was also an avid gun supporter and was also strapped at the time as well.
> 
> I know the full story.


ah, just like that black guy in St Louis deserved to get beat up

you only care for civil rights when they support your politics


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

Who's civil rights were being trampled on asshole?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 19, 2009)

hjmick said:


> > Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.
> >
> > "In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."
> 
> ...



To be honest I think it was stupid, if for nothing else it gives the left an easy target. BTW, I think it should be illegal to carry guns around the POTUS.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that was ONE guy, after many white guys did it. The whole thing with that black guy was staged...he had a fake interview out in public with this local radio talk show guy that was also an avid gun supporter and was also strapped at the time as well.
> ...


Where does marc say the black guy in St. Louis deserved to be beaten?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


if i remember correectly, he did it in another thread

and no, i'm not gonna search that assholes posts to find it


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma...the Republicans are masters at playing race-politics. You shouldn't be surprised that that would be the FIRST thing he fled to. He has nothing else to stand on.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Yes, that was ONE guy, after many white guys did it. The whole thing with that black guy was staged...he had a fake interview out in public with this local radio talk show guy that was also an avid gun supporter and was also strapped at the time as well.
> 
> I know the full story.



Just checking.

And according to AP, there were only "about a dozen people" carrying guns that day, but I suppose some might consider that to be "many." Having spent some time in Arizona, not the least of which was spent in Phoenix, and having seen "open carry" in action, I'm surprised there weren't more folks packing heat.

While I do not subscribe to your characterization that this was an act of intimidation, I will concede that taking a gun to a political event, whether you go in or not, is not a choice I would make.

As to why one would bother if not to intimidate, I would proffer this theory:

Whether you like it or not, our President is not known for his shining support for the right to own a gun, despite his words to the contrary. In Arizona, it is legal to openly carry a firearm. Take these two things and I believe you have a dozen ardent, politically active supporters of the second amendment making a statement about their beliefs while at the same time voicing their opinions on the health care issue. While none of them entered the venue, they did get the attention of some of the press and were able to express their opinions.

At least this was my first reaction when I saw the story. But hey, that's just me. I tend not to over react to this sort of thing. Especially when the Secret Service is involved. I will guarantee you that the last thing any of them want is to be on the detail that allows this countries first "Black" Presdient to get whacked. I'm surprised they don't have him wearing kevlar boxers and wrap in bubble wrap!


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> if i remember correectly, *he did it in another thread*
> 
> and no, i'm not gonna search that assholes posts to find it


LIES!!

What a fucking liar.

Just like the rest of the Republicans.

Nothing but dirty, filthy, 2-bit sack-of-shit liars.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Emma...the Republicans are masters at playing race-politics. You shouldn't be surprised that that would be the FIRST thing he fled to. He has nothing else to stand on.


yeah sure
you said it


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > if i remember correectly, *he did it in another thread*
> ...


yeah you asshole, yopu even discounted a black guy in this thread
you fucking racist


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Yes, that was ONE guy, after many white guys did it. *The whole thing with that black guy was staged...he had a fake interview* out in public with this local radio talk show guy that was also an avid gun supporter and was also strapped at the time as well.
> 
> I know the full story.


 

yeah, cause he couldnt be anything but a token, right ?


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

I'm sure the Secret Service had a dozen bullets to take care of them had any of them had any "bright ideas"


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, that was ONE guy, after many white guys did it. *The whole thing with that black guy was staged...he had a fake interview* out in public with this local radio talk show guy that was also an avid gun supporter and was also strapped at the time as well.
> ...



It WAS staged; the interviewer freely admitted it in a CNN interview. Said he's known the guy for about 2 years, and they planned it all.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > if i remember correectly, *he did it in another thread*
> ...



Seems we're at an impasse lol.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


planned what?
to show up?
uh, no kidding


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Ah no. 

He and Chris (the guy with the rifle) planned the whole thing, interview, etc. When I first saw it, it looked like this guy had just happened to see 'Chris' and decided to talk to him. That wasn't the case. It was all planned out between the two.


----------



## Soaring (Aug 19, 2009)

Arizona is no different from Texas or most other south/southwestern states.  If you take the safety course, you get a conceal/carry license.  If Obama showed up here in my small Texas town, I would wear my 357 just to show the liberal idiot that this is not his country, but instead it is the country of Americans who believe in the constitution and the amendment rights.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Soaring said:


> Arizona is no different from Texas or most other south/southwestern states.  If you take the safety course, you get a conceal/carry license.  If Obama showed up here in my small Texas town, I would wear my 357 just to show the liberal idiot that this is not his country, but instead it is the country of Americans who believe in the constitution and the amendment rights.



There shouldn't be carry/conceal licenses.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


i still dont get what you sayin


----------



## jreeves (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


Yep all staged...
Man beaten outside Carnahan forum speaks out | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO
*Gladney's attorney said a civil suit was pending against the attackers.

Six arrests were made at the Carnahan forum that night. *


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

Soaring said:


> Arizona is no different from Texas or most other south/southwestern states.  If you take the safety course, you get a conceal/carry license.  If Obama showed up here in my small Texas town, I would wear my 357 just to show the liberal idiot that this is not his country, but instead it is the country of Americans who believe in the constitution and the amendment rights.


Hey asshole...he does believe in the constituion and all that.

Don't you have an American flag to go bow down to?

Damned document worshipper!


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona is no different from Texas or most other south/southwestern states.  If you take the safety course, you get a conceal/carry license.  If Obama showed up here in my small Texas town, I would wear my 357 just to show the liberal idiot that this is not his country, but instead it is the country of Americans who believe in the constitution and the amendment rights.
> ...


yeah, that old piece of paper doesnt mean anything, does it


----------



## hjmick (Aug 19, 2009)

Crazy Libertarians...



> The protester carrying an AR-15 rifle outside President Barack Obama's speech in Phoenix on Monday staged the "publicity stunt" with the help of two local Libertarian groups that have worked with the man on Ron Paul's presidential campaign.
> 
> Before attending a pro-Obama health-care reform rally outside the Phoenix Convention Center, the man only known as "Chris" rendezvoused with members of RP4409 and Freedom's Phoenix at the latter group's Phoenix radio and TV studios. That's according to Freedom's Phoenix Publisher Ernest Hancock, who is credited with coining and designing the logo for the "Ron Paul r3VOLution..."
> 
> ...


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



That the two planned it out. Not sure how I can clarify more than that.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Interview with gun-toting protester at Obama rally was staged - CNN.com


----------



## hjmick (Aug 19, 2009)

Soaring said:


> Arizona is no different from Texas or most other south/southwestern states.  If you take the safety course, you get a conceal/carry license.  If Obama showed up here in my small Texas town, I would wear my 357 just to show the liberal idiot that this is not his country, but instead it is the country of Americans who believe in the constitution and the amendment rights.



I'm pretty sure Texas doesn't allow "open carry." Though I suppose they may allow it if you have a CCW, you would know better than I. I do know that there is an effort to bring "open carry" to the state. The beauty of Arizona, and a few other states, is, if you can legally own a gun, you can legally carry it without a permit as long as it is in plain sight.


----------



## Soaring (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona is no different from Texas or most other south/southwestern states.  If you take the safety course, you get a conceal/carry license.  If Obama showed up here in my small Texas town, I would wear my 357 just to show the liberal idiot that this is not his country, but instead it is the country of Americans who believe in the constitution and the amendment rights.
> ...


Actually, I do salute the American flag that I have in my front yard that is properly displayed on a pole.  I served my country in the Vietnam war, and have the scars to prove it.  However, I sometimes wonder why I did it for young, ignorant punks like you who have no appreciation for the flag and what it stands for.  No, I am not a document worshiper, but I do abide by the laws of the state of Texas.  You may want to consider doing the same in your state, and  consider to stop calling people of the internet disicuous names since it indicates yourlack of an education, and indicates you are not tolerent to people of a slightly different thought process from your own ignorant background.


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

You can give Republicans all the facts in the world and they will still deny it to high heavens.

You tell them it was staged, they say "prove it." You prove it and they say "I don't believe you."

Its one nonsense after the other with them.


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

Soaring said:


> Actually, I do salute the American flag that I have in my front yard that is properly displayed on a pole.  I served my country in the Vietnam war, and have the scars to prove it.  However, I sometimes wonder why I did it for young, ignorant punks like you who have no appreciation for the flag and what it stands for.  No, I am not a document worshiper, but I do abide by the laws of the state of Texas.  You may want to consider doing the same in your state, and  consider to stop calling people of the internet disicuous names since it indicates yourlack of an education, and indicates you are not tolerent to people of a slightly different thought process from your own ignorant background.


A Republican speaking of tolerance.

What a joke!!

Anyway, now thats out of the way. I'm willing to be civil to you since you've demonstrated some semblance of common sense and civility.

So lets move on from this point.

Deal?


----------



## jreeves (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> You can give Republicans all the facts in the world and they will still deny it to high heavens.
> 
> You tell them it was staged, they say "prove it." You prove it and they say "I don't believe you."
> 
> Its one nonsense after the other with them.



I'm sure the police made 6 arrests because it was all staged.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


how does this make the black guy a token?


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I never said that. I was answering about the interview and public display of the rifle/handgun being staged.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> > Every US citizen has the right to use their weapons against ANYONE 'if the need be...' where that 'need be' a result that such a person threatens their life or the life of others in their immediate presence.
> ...



Absolute bullshit. Once again dumb ass provide some evidence ANYONE was intimidated. No one inside even knew the guys outside had weapons and no one outside was intimidated at all.

Keep on making shit up. The liar and idiot here is YOU. The law allows the open carrying of weapons. You want to change that? Move the fuck to Arizona and drum up enough support to change the laws of that State. Otherwise shut the hell up with your make believe outrage and your bullshit claims anyone was intimidating anyone else.

Once again dumb ass, if the mere presence of firearms is intimidation then the President intimidates everyone ALL the time with his Secret Service detail and all the Cops he has with him.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1436028-post336.html

You were accusing Marc of making the Black man a "token" because he said it was staged. They _admitted_ it was staged.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > As for the Secret Service saying there was no threat?  Yeah, well, just another set of government officials lying out of their asses.
> ...



LOL another IDIOT, the Secret Service would have ARRESTED them if they thought they were a threat. Pretty damn simple concept to grasp.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Thanks for the _ad hominem_. Nice. 

You missed my point altogether, but I won't call you an idiot. But you do seem to have a problem comprehending the word "or".


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

With all these Libertarion movement and popularity afoot one would expect there to be some  candidates making it to Congress in the upcoming elections eh?

You got the Tea-Bagger movement which was originally LIbertarian and hi-jacked by the Republicans and FOXNews for their nefarious goals.

Now you got the Gun-Nut movement thats experiencing the same thing.

I hope I see such Libterian protests and movements under future Republican administrations and I hope they are given equal if not more media attention as well.

Somehow I highly doubt it though.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt lambasted me about the black panthers (which by the way he didn't know what he was talking about because I spoke out against them as well) who were intimidating white voters in Philadelphia.  One of those guys held a billy club and *although as far as I know he didn't say a word to white voters as they approached*, the meaning was clear.  What if he had a gun?  Do you think the meaning would have been any more clearer?
> ...



The Obama Justice Department dropped the investigation. And it is not legal in Pennsylvania to intimidate people at a voting station nor to be armed at them. Nor is it an open carry State as far as I know. If it were they would have been no threat since the voters could have been armed themselves.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1436028-post336.html
> 
> You were accusing Marc of making the Black man a "token" because he said it was staged. They _admitted_ it was staged.


uh, he said it was a FAKE interview


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...




Lovely last paragraph, so I assume you are upset with the Democratic Congress people hiring Union thugs to intimidate protesters at Town hall meetings? Hiring Union thugs to block doors and prevent protesters from entering town hall meetings? Sounds to me like the Democrats believe strongly that intimidation is a valid tool to use against the Public.

Ohh and the difference between these armed people and the Union thugs is, the armed people have made not one single attempt to silence anyone, prevent anyone from being somewhere or trying to silence anyone.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


And how were they intimidating them (if, as he says, they didn't say anything to the people entering)? Was the club illegal to carry in PA?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



So?


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

Look the asshole is lying again.

It was a fake interview.

Fake = staged you asswipe.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.usmessageboard.com/1436028-post336.html
> ...


Well, given that it appeared to be a spontaneous interview by someone who happened to notice the man carrying the rifle, yeah. I'd say it was 'fake'.


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

From all reports, the dude, "Chris" if thats even  his real name, could barely contain his composure during the interview. He wanted to bust out laughing.

So why is that pantysot getting so upset that I rightfully called the damned interview fake?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Whats funny about this is, wasnt it Obama saying he would bring a gun to a knife fight so to speak? He said:
> ...



BULLSHIT, you admitted that the mere presence of a firearm is not a threat or an intimidation once already, so that means YOU are claiming you know the intent the attitude and the behavior of these people even though there is no evidence of any of that. By the way, that would be why you were ask about interviewing them.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


given the fact you couldnt hear a word that was said, how can you begin to say it was fake
and the CNN guys didnt even know if the guy was pro or anti Obama


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Emma...the Republicans are masters at playing race-politics. You shouldn't be surprised that that would be the FIRST thing he fled to. He has nothing else to stand on.



You are the one that played the race game dumb ass. And by the way, remind us how it was ok for Union Thugs to beat a black Conservative.


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

I wonder if he would argue that wearing White Hoods and burning crosses in people's front yards are so NOT methods of intimidation but just Americas exercising their rights.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



It goes back to the whole "they were there to make a statement" argument.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



What? Of course I could hear what was said. Every word of it. Not sure why YOU couldn't, but I certainly did.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> I wonder if he would argue that wearing White Hoods and burning crosses in people's front yards are so NOT methods of intimidation but just Americas exercising their rights.


burning ANYTHING in *SOMEONE ELSE'S* YARD is intimidating, asshole


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


sorry, but all i head were the two CNN talking heads


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are the one that played the race game dumb ass. And by the way, remind us how it was ok for Union Thugs to beat a black Conservative.



Really?

I'm just stating the facts sir.

Ask Harold Ford, Jr. about the GOPs dirty habit of playing race politics.

Tennessee ad ignites GOP squabbling - Politics- msnbc.com

PERRspectives: The GOP Plays the Race Card in Tennessee

Why do you think that the White, Southern, Male has such a bad name and stereotype today...you think it came out of thin air?


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Well I heard the clip they played just fine, but I was talking about the video of the interview (not CNN). And the guy Sanchez was interviewing was the one who 'interviewed' the guy with the AR 15.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


ah, you didnt post that one
so i have no idea
but those CNN guys didnt even know who he was


----------



## hjmick (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



But not to intimidate, as has been widely argued in this and other threads.

Now, if someone was intimidated by the presence of the guns, I would argue that this is their problem, not the problem of the gun owners. Of course, I also believe that no one can make you feel guilty except you.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > You are the one that played the race game dumb ass. And by the way, remind us how it was ok for Union Thugs to beat a black Conservative.
> ...


HOLY SHIT
that was 3 years ago
and the ad wasnt racist
it was more sexist, if you ask me


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



?

Sanchez did. 

Anywho, I thought the video was posted earlier on this thread.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

hjmick said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Maybe, maybe not. 

"Walk softly but carry a big stick."

In a crowd unarmed civilians a gun is a pretty big stick.

Just sayin'


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




Oh that ad was very racist, my friend.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Let me get this straight, if someone stages an interview it is fake? So all the Presidents speeches are fake?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


naw
i didnt think so then, and i dont think so now
sexist, yeah, racist, no


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Let me get this straight, if someone stages an interview it is fake? So all the Presidents speeches are fake?


must be
and he stages a lot of them


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Let me get this straight, if someone stages an interview it is fake? So all the Presidents speeches are fake?



Spoon fed interview vs. a speech from a POTUS.

Excellent comparison.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

BTW, Hancock plays it cool with Sanchez... admits he has known the man for 2 years and this was staged... but on his website he continues the ruse: 

Chris B. (Black man with an AR-15 at Obama appearance in Phoenix Monday the 17th of August) will join Ernest for 2 hours on the show. Who is this man?... and why did he say on the local news that he "hates" Obama? We need to get the answers,... while we still can.

"Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock" - August 18th 2009



Ernest Hancock, the online radio host who staged an interview with an assault rifle-wielding associate at the Obama event in Arizona yesterday -- and was himself armed with a 9 millimeter pistol -- was a vocal supporter and friend of right-wing anti-government militia members who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s.
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 and lied to its people about 9/11.

The federal government initially accused the Arizona Viper Militia of plotting to blow up federal buildings, which the twelve-member group cased on videotape.

In July 1996, after a grand jury indicted the suspects, federal agents "seized about 90 high-powered rifles and hundreds of pounds of a bomb-making compound from the shabby bungalow of a man whom officials identified as the ordnance specialist of a local paramilitary group," the New York Times reported at the time.

Activist Who Staged Gun Interview At Obama Event Was Prominent Defender Of '90s Militia | TPMMuckraker

Nice guy. 

Here's the video, dive: 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GiXzpfGhA]YouTube - 4409 -- Brother carries AR-15 Rifle at Obamabot Rally[/ame]

"You're taking that down there to Obama? You gonna water the tree of liberty?"

"What are you doing here? .... Gonna spank some Obama?" "Yes, we are."

Nah. Not intimidating.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> BTW, Hancock plays it cool with Sanchez... admits he has known the man for 2 years and this was staged... but on his website he continues the ruse:
> 
> Chris B. (Black man with an AR-15 at Obama appearance in Phoenix Monday the 17th of August) will join Ernest for 2 hours on the show. Who is this man?... and why did he say on the local news that he "hates" Obama? We need to get the answers,... while we still can.
> 
> ...


sure looked to me like he was not a fake and that he really believed what he was saying
the hancock guy clearly couldnt believe what he was hearing
but the black guy didnt seem like he was fake at all


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> HOLY SHIT
> that was 3 years ago
> and the ad wasnt racist
> it was more sexist, if you ask me


Yes, when there was voting going on...3 years ago.

And I didn't ASK you if it was racist or not, as I don't EXPECT you to see it for what it is.

All reports say it was racist, anyone with an OUNCE of sense could recoginze it as racist.

It worked, Harold lost and it was largley due to that racist ad and many similar racist attacks.

They tried it with Obama...its called Southern Tactics. They failed.

Only a die-hard Far-Rightwing Nut like yourself would be so blind as to not see it for what it is.

I've got you pegged Con, and I'm not impressed. Not impressed at all.


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

Watching Red Eye now on FAUX and they showed some clips of the fake interview.

The dude was clearly acting. and even the hosts are admitting it and laughing about it.

The dude says he's almost ALWAYS armed...even in the shower.

Who is going to insist that it wasn't the most staged and contrived piece of entertainment ever?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > HOLY SHIT
> ...


youn are an asshole
LOL you've got NOTHING pegged


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, Hancock plays it cool with Sanchez... admits he has known the man for 2 years and this was staged... but on his website he continues the ruse:
> ...


You know damned well what he meant by "fake interview".


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


yeah, he meant the black guy didnt really mean what he said

thats racist


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Watching Red Eye now on FAUX and they showed some clips of the fake interview.
> 
> The dude was clearly acting. and even the hosts are admitting it and laughing about it.
> 
> ...


um, you watch redeye?


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

I watch FAUX all the time...daily.

Gotta know how the enemy thinks.

I've seen just about every show on the FAUX line-up, including weekend shows like Geraldo and Huckabee. So I understand the Neo-Con mindset and strategy quite well.

Can you say the same for say...MSNBC?


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I didn't take his posts to say that at all. He said it was staged and a fake interview... which it was... YOU accused him of making the black man a 'token'.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Let me get this straight, if someone stages an interview it is fake? So all the Presidents speeches are fake?
> ...



An interview is not fake if it occurs. You may want to actually read what the morons on this thread are claiming. Every politician stages every interview they have. Obama is the worst, he wants to actually control what questions he gets asked so he will already have an answer typed into his teleprompter.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Ya we do, the contention is that the person giving the interview does not believe what he says and the person doing the interview knows it. And that simply is not true.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


and he did


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


i thought he had strong convictions and believed what he said


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I understand what they are saying.

They are saying it was a staged, scripted interview.


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> I didn't take his posts to say that at all. He said it was staged and a fake interview... which it was... YOU accused him of making the black man a 'token'.


Thats the Republican neo-con mindset Emma, every thing's a tactic and dupliceteous. They saw the Democrats truthfully had a female candidate in Hillary, so they quickly scraped up Sarah to respond.

The Democrats brought America the first black President, so they quickly scraped up Michael Steele to counter.

They are both failures, as it was a contrived effort, nothing of virtue or value, just another sexist and racist tactics to play with the American voters.

Now he's talking about tokens...its the only way a Republican knows how to think.

So Dive...what part of the South are you from? Amd when are you gonna wave your Confederate flag high again?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't take his posts to say that at all. He said it was staged and a fake interview... which it was... YOU accused him of making the black man a 'token'.
> ...


wow, you are SO wrong, again
asshole


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


and where is the proof?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



There's a link like 3 or 4 pages back in this thread.

The dude Hancock, who interviewed the guy, admitted it was staged.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


well, i only see 11 pages, so could you narrow it down
i didnt see that one


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

Interview with gun-toting protester at Obama rally was staged - CNN.com


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I didn't read it that way at all.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


Yep. 

And if you listen to it _now knowing_ that he has known the guy for 2 years and it was planned, it's obviously scripted.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Really? I posted it and you commented. Even said you couldn't hear the interview over the 'talking heads'.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> Interview with gun-toting protester at Obama rally was staged - CNN.com


from your link



> And while Hancock admitted the interview was staged, he insisted the *protester's message was not*.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


his was to text, yours was to a video
sorry, i couldnt hear what was being said, like i told you


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Interview with gun-toting protester at Obama rally was staged - CNN.com
> ...



Never said otherwise. They planned it though, and each knew what the other was going to say.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Interview with gun-toting protester at Obama rally was staged - CNN.com
> ...



Nobody is arguing that the protester didn't believe in what he was saying.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



And I posted the video to the "interview". Along with some other info that slipped under the radar.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


it doesnt say that at all
it said they planed the interview
what marc the racsit ass said was it was fake and the guy didnt believe what he was saying


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


yes, i watched that, and i didnt get the idea it was FAKE


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

> A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president, and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he said.


Interesting. 

I wonder if they are the ones who determine what the 'venue' consists of? (it would make sense that they would be the ones to do so)

Could they declare (for example) that a mile radius around the President is the "venue"?


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Right ... they planned the interview i.e. it was staged.

I don't remember Marc saying that the guy didn't believe what he was saying.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


thats what he sure implied
if he didnt actually say it


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I think you just misread what he was saying.

*shrug*


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


at this point i dont give a rats ass 
hes an asshole for calling me a racist


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> So Dive...what part of the South are you from? Amd when are you gonna wave your Confederate flag high again?


Ok. Back up a bit. 

If you're implying that Dive is a racist (or anything close to that) you are _dead wrong_. 

I've known him for years, and he is as far from a racist as anyone can be. We disagree on almost everything, and Lord knows we go at it tooth and nail out here, but he's a friend and I really don't appreciate him being called a racist. 

I believe you owe him an apology for that one. Seriously.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > So Dive...what part of the South are you from? Amd when are you gonna wave your Confederate flag high again?
> ...



I agree with what you said about Dive ... but I don't see the Confederate flag as racist either. Really it was just a side to a civil war. Many black soldiers fought for the south as well, because the war wasn't just about that one issue. But enough of the history, simply put, I would have instead just called Marc naive ...  For not knowing that in the first place himself.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > So Dive...what part of the South are you from? Amd when are you gonna wave your Confederate flag high again?
> ...



I missed that post.

(sorry I missed it too, dive .... and the one where you said he called you a racist ... I had already closed up shop and was getting ready to leave work)

Yeah, man, divecon is in no way a racist.  I've known him for a couple of years now and it's absurd to even accuse him of being one.

Not cool.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 19, 2009)

All causes to the war flow from race and slavery, however.  Blacks did fight in very few numbers for the South while more than 180,000 wore Union blue, more than 30,000 of them dying.  Yes, to tens of millions of American, the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racisim.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> All causes to the war flow from race and slavery, however.  Blacks did fight in very few numbers for the South while more than 180,000 wore Union blue, more than 30,000 of them dying.  Yes, to tens of millions of American, the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of racisim.



Tell that to the black people that still salute it. I can't find the clip with the exact point I was making, but it's this show and about the guy in the first part of this clip.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIuTKAmKohs]YouTube - Reparations are bullshit! Part 3[/ame]


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Tell that to the black people that still salute it.



Slavery was the reason behind the South's secession. That is well documented (from that time). But I'm not going to further derail the thread.


----------



## pete (Aug 19, 2009)

Here in NC the flag is flown in a lot of different places including at blacks houses and on their cars front plate etc.
So its racist against who?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



EVERY interview the President gives is staged and scripted. And the current President tries to demand to know the questions ahead of time. Talk about fake. If this is fake then Obama and any interview is beyond fake.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Yes someone is. He specifically said so. He claimed the guy was told what to say and how to act.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> > A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president, and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he said.
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> ...



They can declare anything they want, which is the whole point about the fake outrage about weapons and the President. Those people were in an area that allowed them to be armed. Otherwise they would have been arrested. THAT is the entire point.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



No he did not, you misread it.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

Hancock has ties to the Viper Militia...a group of right wing terrorists, many who are in jail.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Hancock has ties to the Viper Militia...a group of right wing terrorists, many who are in jail.



Yup, usual attempts by idiots to blackball people so that instead of responding to their message you can just dismiss them. And you do it all the time.

Notice carefully you dumb bitch, he was not charged, nor tried for any of that. Further he believes, and others do as well, that the cases against them were fabricated.

Kinda like the case against the Waco Compound was fabricated. Or the charges against Randy Weaver were fabricated.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 19, 2009)

RE: Right to Bear Arms ...

I have Kodiaks ... what have you?


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Hancock has ties to the Viper Militia...a group of right wing terrorists, many who are in jail.
> ...


What message would that be? As far as I can tell it is, "insure all Americans and we'll kill you."

They also think 9/11 was fabricated. Loons the lot of them.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

hjmick said:


> As to why one would bother if not to intimidate, I would proffer this theory:
> 
> Whether you like it or not, our President is not known for his shining support for the right to own a gun, despite his words to the contrary. In Arizona, it is legal to openly carry a firearm. Take these two things and I believe you have a dozen ardent, politically active supporters of the second amendment making a statement about their beliefs while at the same time voicing their opinions on the health care issue. While none of them entered the venue, they did get the attention of some of the press and were able to express their opinions.
> 
> At least this was my first reaction when I saw the story. But hey, that's just me. I tend not to over react to this sort of thing. Especially when the Secret Service is involved. I will guarantee you that the last thing any of them want is to be on the detail that allows this countries first "Black" Presdient to get whacked. I'm surprised they don't have him wearing kevlar boxers and wrap in bubble wrap!



HJ,

Another one who posts ideas that are worth reading and paying attention to.

Although you used more words your reasoning still implies the "intimidation factor".  Except for garyd's reply (which would then make the gun toter's wanna be vigilantes and just as undeserving of praise, no one has offered even a semi-decent reason for them to be there that was not for the purpose of intimidation.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Absolute bullshit. Once again dumb ass provide some evidence ANYONE was intimidated. No one inside even knew the guys outside had weapons and no one outside was intimidated at all.
> 
> Keep on making shit up. The liar and idiot here is YOU. The law allows the open carrying of weapons. You want to change that? Move the fuck to Arizona and drum up enough support to change the laws of that State. Otherwise shut the hell up with your make believe outrage and your bullshit claims anyone was intimidating anyone else.
> 
> Once again dumb ass, if the mere presence of firearms is intimidation then the President intimidates everyone ALL the time with his Secret Service detail and all the Cops he has with him.



Obviously, dumbshit, you haven't read the thread.  I never asked that they law be changed.  Nor did I say that the gun toter was doing anything illegal.  Nor have I once said anyone WAS intimidated.  I said those people were there to intimidate.  Maybe it is a concept too difficult for you to understand, but when someone attempts to do something they are not always successful.

Having a firearm itself is not the intimidation factor.  It is the what you make others believe that you will do with it.  

Maybe, being so old, you have lost 99% of your brain cells?

Immie


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Go ahead you dumb ass state that Randy Weaver was not set up. You will lose. After the FBI murdered his wife and son and he surrendered he went to court on those charges and the Judge threw them out and lambasted the Government for fabricating an issue and setting him up.

As for Waco you loon, the ATF had no case. They claimed they raided the place because of automatic weapons, none were ever found. They claimed the compound was illegally buying explosives and weapons. No explosives were every found and the Compound had several members that had FFL licenses that the ATF canceled just before the raid and did not inform the owners of those licenses.

Then there was the FBI fabricating child abuse and sex charges to take America's mind off the fact that over 80 Americans were under siege illegally by the US Government. Followed by the murder of everyone in the compound to cover it up and prevent the facts from coming out.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > As to why one would bother if not to intimidate, I would proffer this theory:
> ...



In other words you made it all up. Thanks for admitting it.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> yak yak yak deflection



The Viper Militia:



> Prosecutors played a videotape made by members of the group showing them blowing up homemade bombs in the desert. A government witness, special ATF agent Steven Ott, testified he and an undercover agent had been monitoring the group for more than six months and during that time observed them stockpiling weapons, teaching each other how to make bombs, and discussing how they might direct violence at federal buildings in downtown Phoenix. The 12 Viper Militia members were arrested on Monday on federal conspiracy and weapons charges. All week long federal officials have combed through the homes of militia members, finding what they characterized as an astonishing arsenal of weapons. At one home alone, they confiscated more than 100 guns. Some were homemade automatic and semiautomatic weapons. And federal agents found more than 400 pounds of materials that can be used to make explosives. Maricopa County Attorney Richard Romley heads a task force that has been investigating Arizona militias for several years. Although he is not involved in this federal case, he says discovering groups like the Vipers confirms what his team has suspected, that some extremist militia groups have gone underground.


Online NewsHour: Viper Militia -- July 5, 1996 | PBS

The evidence on these guys was much stronger than the evidence on the various terrorist groups arrested recently...including the idiots in Miami that you danced around in fear over. But you go right ahead and keep these "heroes" at the front of the Republican agenda.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Hancock has ties to the Viper Militia...a group of right wing terrorists, many who are in jail.
> ...



Seem like to me, exactly what you have been attempting to do with everyone with whom you disagree in this thread with your idiotic rantings and calling everyone else idiots.  Seems to me like you are projecting.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> In other words you made it all up. Thanks for admitting it.



Nope, you're just to frigging dumb to read it.

BTW the minute you started with your strawman attacks, which was your very first post in this thread, you lost.  Sorry, let me correct that, I'm tired, the moment you started with your _ad hominen_ attacks you lost.  I would have appreciated your input into the discussion.  I would have liked to have read what you think about the guy toting guns and your impressions about the entire subject.  In stead, we got nothing of substance from you.

Immie


----------



## anna (Aug 19, 2009)

Cnn is fucking with it's sheeeple again!! The biggestassualt rifle was being carried by a pro obama  loon. He was the biggest black man in the crowd. Reminds me of the black panthers that were sent out to  intimidate the voters last november!!


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

Can anyone explain to me what the heck does assault rifles have to do with health care?

Do any of you gun-toter supporters believe they were right for doing what they did?

Mind you, read slowly, I'm not talking about legally within their right.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Can anyone explain to me what the heck does assault rifles have to do with health care?
> 
> Do any of you gun-toter supporters believe they were right for doing what they did?
> 
> Mind you, read slowly, I'm not talking about legally within their right.



No idea what it has to do with health care. Did they say it did? I thought they were protesting the administrations attempts to take away firearms... I dont really know a more effective way to do that. then protest with the firearms as their right. If they arent being violent, what's the problem?


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone explain to me what the heck does assault rifles have to do with health care?
> ...


Avatar, these events were all health-care related.

Were they not?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone explain to me what the heck does assault rifles have to do with health care?
> ...



Although, I don't exactly agree with you, Thank you, as this kind of answers my question to you in post number 318 which it seems you may have missed.

The reason I do not agree is that I believe bringing the weapons was for only one reason and that was to intimidate their opponents.  In my opinion, that is not the right thing to do although, I understand that it is done by the other side as well, but two wrongs, don't make a right.

Immie


----------



## Newby (Aug 19, 2009)

Avatar4321 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone explain to me what the heck does assault rifles have to do with health care?
> ...



I wonder if they were as upset whenever protesters hounded Bush at every place he spoke, and their protests had nothing to do with the topic on which he was speaking?  I wonder how they felt about that nutcase Cindy Sheehan who protested outside of his private residence where there weren't any organized events going on. They'll be hyprocits until the end.  I wonder how they'll portray the protesters that show up at the G20 summit this September that will be protesting dozens of things that will not be topics at the summit.  That whole argument is ridiculous to begin with.  Anyone can protest for any reason, I've never seen a rule where it said you could only protest on the subject being addressed at the event.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Avatar, these events were all health-care related.
> 
> Were they not?



I was unaware that there was some rule that stated that protesters can only protest the issue the President is currently speaking on.

You really need to stop trying so hard. Just because you dont like what someone protests about or how they go about it, doesnt mean they dont have the right to do it as long as its legal. I think protesting on all fronts is frankly a waste of time. Id rather do something. But that doesnt mean I think they dont have the right. 

People can protest whatever the heck they want, when they want. That's the beauty of freedom of speech. We dont have to let others control the debate. We can say our own piece. 

Now if mobs start forming, shooting people, tarring and feathering them, intimidating them, then we have some issues. As of right now though, it looks like the intimidation has been from those on the left trying to stop the protestors.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Wearing weapons is how the LEFT intimidates alleged "opponents". Reference gun-toting Acorn goons at voting booths during election.

For the right, a gun is nothing more than an accessory and a symbol of the freedom we are constitutionally guaranteed.

The left doesn't like to see guns because they don't think anyone should have guns except their own SS.

There have been guns all over these protests, and nobody has gotten hurt. Nobody will get hurt until you idiots try to remove constitutional rights from American citizens. Then, according to the constititution, we are obligated to fight back.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



My God, what is the matter with morons like you and RGS?  Can't you read?

I have not once asked for the removal of weapons.  Not Once!!! Learn to read.

Nor have I once defended the morons from ACORN or the Black Panthers (not in this thread nor any other thread) who threatened or intimidated people during the last election.  Not Once!!! Learn to read.

Nor have I once indicated that the gun toters were doing anything illegal.  Not once!!! Learn to read.

And for the record, I fully support the right to bare arms.  Learn to read.

Respectfully,

Immie


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



*Wearing weapons is how the LEFT intimidates alleged "opponents". Reference gun-toting Acorn goons at voting booths during election.
*

You can't have it both ways.  What disqualified the "goons" from the right to bear arms.


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

There was no voter-intimidation from the Left in the last election or any previous election.

That is Far-Rightwing Nutjob MYTH.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> There was no voter-intimidation from the Left in the last election or any previous election.
> 
> That is Far-Rightwing Nutjob MYTH.



Bull shit.

Immie


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > There was no voter-intimidation from the Left in the last election or any previous election.
> ...



References?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> There was no voter-intimidation from the Left in the last election or any previous election.
> 
> That is Far-Rightwing Nutjob MYTH.



Riiiiight. Who am I gonna believe, you or my lying eyes.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Philadelphia. You may recall the New Attorney General recently declined to prosecute the two New Black Panther members who were filmed wielding clubs outside a polling place. Both had been indicted for voter intimidation.

Memory clearing up yet?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



You are more than welcome to google "black panther election" but here is one link:


The Black Panther case - Washington Times

As for ACORN:

Be my guest to google there shananiggans during the last election cycle.  You'll find plenty and plenty of defense from the left of their actions as well.

Immie


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


 What did they say to intimidate voters?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Does it matter what they said?  Two men standing in front of a polling place, one carrying a billy club is intimidating.  However, you can find some of the answers to your question in the link I provided.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 19, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...




First of all, I didn't say the goons couldn't be there.

Second, wearing weapons to VOTING stations, and hanging out for the express purpose of intimidating voters, is one hell of a lot different than packing at town hall meetings, which are by nature a venue for protest.


----------



## MarcATL (Aug 19, 2009)

The only party that's guilty of any form of voter intimidation is the Republicans.

They are notorious for that.

New Mexico GOP Sued For Voter Intimidation
Republican blamed for letter telling Latinos they cannot vote - Times Online
Think Progress » FBI Investigating Voter Intimidation In Virginia
news: GOP seeks police, veterans to work Milwaukee polls

I mean...is there any disagreement that Republicans will stoop to despicable depths in order to get their evil claws into government? There really shouldn't be.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 19, 2009)

Yawn. We already went through all this. Dems far outshine the Republicans when it comes to initimidation tactics and dirty voting.

But you digress.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



First I heard of it.  I know this will be a shock to your system but small news on the eastern seaboard doesn't make front pages here in Seattle.  You are not the center of MY universe.

The report cites two men allegedly black panthers (which hasn't existed since huey newton) showing up at a polling location.  One of the men had a nightstick. There were no associated reports of any injuries.  Your assumtion of an assuault is incorrect.  The law that was and the line crossed was electioneering or trying to influence an election within X feet of a polling location.

The report seems fair and a law was apparantly broken.  Normally I do not put much creedance in a newspaper owned by a guy who thinks he is Jeezuss.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 19, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



So you are trying to equate one black guy with a nightstick at a polling location to a black guy that has an ar-15 and a pistol within a couple of hundred feet of a sitting peresident?


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


Do you just wake up in the morning wondering "what shit should I make up today?"

Also, why do you keep belittling the millions of people killed by the nazis?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> There was no voter-intimidation from the Left in the last election or any previous election.
> 
> That is Far-Rightwing Nutjob MYTH.



You are truly stupid.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFOKnJ0oXYY]YouTube - EJ Exclusive - Police Respond to Intimidation[/ame]


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Just when I thought you couldn't be more of a blithering idiot than you have repeatedly proven yourself to be....


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > There was no voter-intimidation from the Left in the last election or any previous election.
> ...



Stupid or just an extremely partisan hack?

I'd go with the latter.

Immie


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Hancock has ties to the Viper Militia...a group of right wing terrorists, many who are in jail.
> ...


meh, could be, that video reminded me a lot of the Alex Jones type 9/11 videos
he was the radio guy, not the black guy


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



I'm asking because someone said (I believe it was you) that they didn't say anything to people coming in. 

I'm not sure what link you mean though.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 19, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > There was no voter-intimidation from the Left in the last election or any previous election.
> ...



The videos do not show any intimidation.  At worst the two black youts claiming to be security should have positioned themselves out of the path of incoming voters.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



And elections are not? 

How do you know what their intent was? What did they say or do to the people entering the polling places? What law(s) did they break?


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > There was no voter-intimidation from the Left in the last election or any previous election.
> ...



So they weren't speaking to the people entering the polls. 

What did they do that was 'intimidating'? Is it legal to openly carry that type of billy club in PA?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


i'll go with both


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Then let's see some examples. Someone posted the PA incident. I'm waiting to see if anyone can answer my questions.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> The only party that's guilty of any form of voter intimidation is the Republicans.
> 
> They are notorious for that.
> 
> ...



The link you posted about Virginia is years old. Not even from the last cycle and it's about allegations. Did you even read this stuff? Further, the allegation was about phone calls. If you are going to post something about this allegation then what you should post is the OUTCOME. IT'S BEEN YEARS NOW. 

If this was actual intimidation, then show us the money. Don't make me go through the rest of your bull shit to show you up.

The left is the ones that make sure dead people get out and vote. So stop whining about the right.


----------



## 007 (Aug 19, 2009)

Like the mans sign said at the first Tax Day Tea Party, "we came unarmed... THIS time."

Well... the times are changing. People are FED UP with the little dog eared, zero experience, community organizer from shy town that's simply fucking up the country and NOT listening to the people.

And if I'm not mistaken, it's our CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to get rid of him if he's ISN'T working for the people. Citizens LEGALLY carrying their firearms to a protest is symbolic. It's a message.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> I'm asking because someone said (I believe it was you) that they didn't say anything to people coming in.
> 
> I'm not sure what link you mean though.



I don't think I said they didn't say anything.  But, I don't believe that they needed to say anything.  Simply being there with a menacing attitude was enough.

Here's the link:

The Black Panther case - Washington Times

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Like the mans sign said at the first Tax Day Tea Party, "we came unarmed... THIS time."
> 
> Well... the times are changing. People are FED UP with the little dog eared, zero experience, community organizer from shy town that's simply fucking up the country and NOT listening to the people.
> 
> And if I'm not mistaken, it's our CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to get rid of him if he's ISN'T working for the people. Citizens LEGALLY carrying their firearms to a protest is symbolic. It's a message.



I agree it is a message.  What message would you think it carries.  

Here's the message I think they were trying to say:

"STFU or BANG!, you're dead".

Immie


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Not my fault you are on the left coast. It was covered by National News organizations on the day of the election. Not my fault you weren't watching. I never said anyone was assaulted. I said they had clubs. As I recall seeing, they both had clubs, but it has been a few months now, so maybe I'm not correct in that memory. 

The point is, the justice department had secured indictments against these individuals. Oh, and sorry you haven't been paying attention since the 1970s, but the New Black Panthers have been around a while now. Granted, they are not what they were in the 1970s.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Like the mans sign said at the first Tax Day Tea Party, "we came unarmed... THIS time."
> ...



I think it is a message to the government, not an individual. Of course, Obama is the head of government, so much like George III, he gets to be the face of that which is opposed.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 19, 2009)

First off, at the rally, there wasn't just ONE person with a gun.

There were 12.  I guess you could call them Disciples of Armageddon.  One of the people with an AR-15 was standing there yelling anti Obama rhetoric.

There was yet another that was being interviewed, and the news anchor asked if that was the one that was yelling, and the reporter stated there were actually 12 people there.

Now..........if this were a town hall concerning the right to bear arms, I could see it.  However, not a health care rally.  That would be like taking a sick person in a hospital bed to a town hall about Second Ammendment rights, and they start yelling about not getting taken care of, while the meeting is about guns.  Kinda the same deal. 

Another thing to consider.  Ever notice how some of the national headlines killers lately have seemed like "nice normal people"?  And, have you also noticed how there have some people who were purported by their neighbors to be normal, yet they go and shoot up streets, parties, etc.

With the vicious rhetoric that has been spewed by the likes of Limp Idiot, Billo the Clown, and Blech, as well as the violence and other things that have been going on, it's probably gonna just be a matter of time before something goes seriously wrong at either a Presidential town meeting or at one with a Congress critter.

Either way, my bet is gonna be that if it happens, it's gonna be someone from the GOP that pulls the trigger.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > The only party that's guilty of any form of voter intimidation is the Republicans.
> ...



The "left" as you put it did not post those videos.  I do not "whine" about the "right".  I point out as always that those that interloped into the republican party are scum and use every devious scheme they can conjure up to forward thier backward christian fascist agenda to make america weak and thier constituants weak minded.  Hence "death panels" supposedly written into a bill that does not exist and other such bullshit intended to subvert a rational discource on healthcare.  Neo cons are liars.  No whine..just fact.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 19, 2009)

We don't tolerate that stuff from rads or loonies on either side of the political spectrum.  If wierdos with firearms showed up at one of our local poltical rallies of any party, good golly miss molly, I do think the law enforcement would take those firearms away, beat them up one side then down the other, pull their pants down around their ankles, kick them in the butt, and send them stumbling back to their mommies.

Any person who carries a firearm openly to a political rally is making a public statement of intimidation.  Unless the party is the We Are The Armed And Gunning For You, America Party.

Use some common sense, folks!


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



To compare apples and apples, as you are apparently attempting to compare the Philly incident with the folks carrying firearms in AZ, the people entering the event in AZ would have been forced to walk between the armed people standing at the entrance to the event.

If that were the case, then I think you would have a legitimate case that the people attending the event were intimidated. It the Black Panthers were across the street from the polling place, then I don't think it would have been intimidating. So it is the proximity of armed people to the sole point of ingress that is the issue. Given the fact they had clubs, if they had been made to be 20 or 30 feet away from the door, then that probably would have been sufficient for them not to be "intimidating."

Now, given that their indictment was for electioneering inside of the minimum distance, I'd say they were probably advocating a specific candidate, wouldn't you?


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > I'm asking because someone said (I believe it was you) that they didn't say anything to people coming in.
> ...



*sigh*

I've been trying to make your point lol. 

IF carrying a billy club in PA is not illegal, and they weren't speaking to voters as they entered (beyond a hi, how are ya kind of thing), then what exactly made them _intimidating_? 

I've seen some here blatantly state that the gun-toters in AZ weren't intimidating because they were allowed to carry by law (but at the same time, saying they were 'sending a message'). That they didn't say anything untoward. Well, apparently neither did these 2 guys in PA. But the same people are using them as an example of intimidation. 

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

An interview with a witness at the polling place: TPM Election Central | Talking Points Memo | Obama Volunteer On Scene Disputes Fox News' Suggestions That Black Panthers Are Intimidating Voters

And yeah, while I agree that in both incidents, they have a right to carry, they were _both_ intimidating.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Did you reply to the right post?


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> Like the mans sign said at the first Tax Day Tea Party, "we came unarmed... THIS time."
> 
> Well... the times are changing. People are FED UP with the little dog eared, zero experience, community organizer from shy town that's simply fucking up the country and NOT listening to the people.
> 
> And if I'm not mistaken, it's our CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to get rid of him if he's ISN'T working for the people. Citizens LEGALLY carrying their firearms to a protest is symbolic. It's a message.



I'm glad you changed "take him out" to "get rid of him". 

And a message for what, exactly?


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



The one was a certified poll watcher. He had every right to be there. 

What was "intimidating" was his dress and race.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



So in a case where it is alleged that people were intimidating voters to vote for Obama. You trot out a link from a Pro-Obama web site that is talking points about how the law was not violated and there was no intimidation.

REALLY? Does that actually work some place?


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I've seen NO evidence they did anything but stand at the front of the building. Even the FoxNews reporter stated twice in his report that they had NO evidence that there was any intimidation, ending with this: "*There's been no disturbances that I'm aware of*, except what we've encountered here. [referring to the news crew being asked to leave, then told to stand 10 feet away; and the poll watcher telling him he didn't want the camera in his face] But again, *I want to make very clear, we don't know* that any voters were denied entrance to this polling facility. *We don't know* that anyone was intimidated to the point that they decided not to vote here, but that was *what some people were concerned might be happening with two Black Panthers, one of them holding a nightstick, out front."*

The video by the college kid doesn't show anything but them standing there. So I ask again, where is the evidence that they verbally threatened/intimidated anyone?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> First off, at the rally, there wasn't just ONE person with a gun.
> 
> There were 12.  I guess you could call them Disciples of Armageddon.  One of the people with an AR-15 was standing there yelling anti Obama rhetoric.
> 
> ...



I'll take the other side of that bet. How much?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



What's intimidating about him being black?

If that was intimidating, I guess I'd have to be shaking in my shoes constantly since I'm one of about 3 white people in the building I work in with about 300 black people in a predominately black section of the District of Columbia.

Racist much?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 19, 2009)

Just out of curiosity, since Montana is an open carry state, why didn't that NRA guy bring a gun?

Nope........this is yet another example of the GOP and their hate speech.  Like I said, I'm betting that when something goes south (and if the right keeps up with their bullshit, it will), it's gonna be a GOP'er who pulls the trigger.

And..........here's something else to think about.........there are lots of incidents yearly where people (who have owned guns for a long time and are very familiar with them ), accidentally discharge a weapon and kill someone else or themselves.  

Do you REALLY think that taking a firearm to a rally is a good idea?  What if they get so caught up in their rhetoric, that they forget to put the safety on, accidentally drop their weapon, and someone gets shot?

Nope........this was a bad move, especially the amount of people there with guns.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

People were afraid of what _'might'_ happen with those two out front.

So how can those people here who claim that the presence of at least a dozen with guns at the rally in AZ wasn't intimidating, that they had an absolute right to be there, and that they shouldn't be disallowed from carrying for what _might_ happen turn around and claim these two guys are intimidating by their mere presence. 

At least be consistent. 

I agree in both cases with their absolute right to be where they were with their weapons. I also think that in _both_ cases they were incredibly stupid, did little to nothing to garner support for their cause, and were intimidating --- _regardless_ of their rights.


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Thanks Allie.  

No, reallly.  

Thanks. 

I'd almost forgotten how much of a spaced out wackjob you are.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


Oh please. 

"Black Panther"

You don't think that was highlighted like hell to scare the crap outta of people and make for a more sensational story? 

Show me news reports where they described them as merely "two men standing in front of a polling place" and you'll have a point.


----------



## elvis (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Bet 'cha, dillo doesn't accuse you of trying to be a mind reader!
> ...



yeah, that's what it is you whiney little fuck.  cry me another fucking river, douchebag.


----------



## elvis (Aug 19, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> The only party that's guilty of any form of voter intimidation is the Republicans.
> 
> They are notorious for that.
> 
> ...



do you get down on your knees when Olberführer comes on television?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> People were afraid of what _'might'_ happen with those two out front.
> 
> So how can those people here who claim that the presence of at least a dozen with guns at the rally in AZ wasn't intimidating, that they had an absolute right to be there, and that they shouldn't be disallowed from carrying for what _might_ happen turn around and claim these two guys are intimidating by their mere presence.
> 
> ...



Nope.......what might happen is a valid concern.  Shit......the idiots in the GOP have stated that they are against abortion because that fetus "might end up being the next President or great scientist".  Yeah........they might also end up being another Manson, McVeigh, or Hitler as well.

Gotta look at both sides of the equation and take in all factors.  Forgetting to put the safety on is a common mistake.

And the pressure required on the triggers of most of those weapons ain't much.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

The black panther with the club was told by the police to leave. The guys with the guns were allowed to stay.

Why?

I have no idea. Both were intimidating.


----------



## Oscar Wao (Aug 19, 2009)

Making it so obvious...dumb assed move.  I mean, seriously, being THAT flamboyant...


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Like the mans sign said at the first Tax Day Tea Party, "we came unarmed... THIS time."
> ...



Police monitored the armed protesters in Arizona, so I'm sure no message like the one you just pulled out of your ass happened.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > People were afraid of what _'might'_ happen with those two out front.
> ...



Well my point was that for quite a few here, "what might happen" was a valid reason to consider the 2 guys in PA intimidating, yet those same people argued that "what might happen" _wasn't_ a valid reason to be concerned about those in AZ.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...





> According to an affidavit filed by veteran voting rights activist Bartle Bull, who monitored elections in Mississippi at the height of the civil rights movement, the New Black Panther¹s directed racist comments towards white poll workers such as you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.





> Shabazz and Jackson were captured on widely circulated video of the incident standing 10-15 feet from the polling station.  The two men are seen standing shoulder to shoulder, dressed in black military-style uniforms, black berets and combat boots; Shabazz tapped and pointed the nightstick in his hands at individuals.





> NBPP National Chairman Milik Zulu Shabazz and party member Jerry Jackson both faces charges for violating the Voting Rights Act for engaging in coercion, threats and intimidation and attempted coercion, threats, and intimidation of voters and those aiding voters at a Philadelphia polling station on November 4th, 2008.



From The Hill

I'm sure if it were members of the KKK in Montgomery, Alabama doing these same activities you wouldn't call it intimidating either.....


----------



## Article 15 (Aug 19, 2009)

Ok ... so lemme get this straight ...

According to some here on the right ...

Two black dudes standing outside a voting station with clubs, which, as I far as I know are legal to carry, is intimidation.

But several men showing up to protest a heated issue legally carrying guns and in one case holding a sign calling for the violent overthrow of the gov't isn't intimidation.

Is that what you guys are arguing?  Really?

Guys, in both cases it's intimidation.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



The only thing I see is allegedly directed at poll worker. Anything directed at voters? 

And I guess you can't read? I have stated several times that they were intimidating. Just as the people toting guns at the rally in AZ were too.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 19, 2009)

here.......

AR-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now........since the people with clubs were considered not intimidating at 30 ft, then why didn't they make the people with the AR-15's stand over 600 yards away (effective range of the weapon).  Additionally, comparing clubs to guns as apples and apples is misleading.  A fast person can hit another with a club roughly 30-50 times/min.  The AR-15 fires at 800 rpm.

No.........there wasn't a safe place for them to not be intimidating anywhere around there.  By the way, most of those assault rifles are capable of penetrating metal.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Article 15 said:


> Ok ... so lemme get this straight ...
> 
> According to some here on the right ...
> 
> ...



Bingo.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 19, 2009)

Obviously stupidity not guns kill far rightwingers.  Bunch of nutjobs.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Aug 19, 2009)

You guys dont at all see the difference between a protest and the polls?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Just out of curiosity, since Montana is an open carry state, why didn't that NRA guy bring a gun?
> 
> Nope........this is yet another example of the GOP and their hate speech.  Like I said, I'm betting that when something goes south (and if the right keeps up with their bullshit, it will), it's gonna be a GOP'er who pulls the trigger.
> 
> ...



No, from a safety standpoint, I don't think it's a good idea. I've seen enough accidental discharges in the Army of all kinds of weapons to think that it's fairly hazardous.

But, it is indicative that some people in this country have been pushed, by the proposed policies of this government, to the point where they think it is important to "warn" the government that they are going too far.

It's not something I'm ready to do at this point, but I'm sure there is a point where I too would feel that it is necessary. As would all people who believe in the true purpose of the second amendment; to act as a check on the overreaching of government.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Hey stupid!!!! Arizona is an OPEN CARRY STATE!!!! Do you know what the fuck that means?? And wouldn't it be perfectly logical that citizens of Arizona would be seen carrying weapons by other citizens of that state? Therefore, it's easy to assume that the citizens of Arizona are quite used to seeing openly carried weapons and if open carried weapons intimidated the masses, it would have probably been abolished by now. But apparently the citizens of that state or NOT intimidated by the sight of a weapon being openly displayed.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Obviously stupidity not guns kill far rightwingers.  Bunch of nutjobs.



Yeah.....not like you.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



How about it's intimidating when a large man dressed in military garb points a club at you as you pass in to the polling place. 

Try to at least deal with the facts as they are presented. As I said before, if the people that attended the AZ meeting had to pass through the armed people, you'd have a point. These two were looking deliberately menacing with their military stance, clothes and club and pointing the club at people and apparently using racist commentary toward whites as they entered the polling place.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> here.......
> 
> AR-15 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Were you allowed to shoot real rounds with an M-16A(n)? Or, did they make you use subcaliber rounds so we could have more real rounds to fire?

I hate being lectured by Navy guys about small arms. Where you gonna find that 800 round magazine?  That's a cyclic rate of fire. Not an actual rate of fire. Theoretical. In real life, you have a 28 round magazine. No not 30, if you want it to feed right. And you need to change them. A fairly proficient soldier using ammunition pouches to carry his ammo should be able to eject the old magazine, pull out a new magazine, lock and load in about 2-4 seconds. 

Assuming since you are having them fire full auto in your scenario, you would be endangering a lot of birds and people about a mile away from where the shots are taking place. That would be why the M-16A2 was limited to 3 round burst. Most people can't control the muzzle rise after the third round, so they end up shooting at the sky. And max effective range of an M-16A2 is 800 meters not 600 yards.

And M-16s are marginal at best at shooting through metal. A car door, probably, anything more, doubtful without AP rounds (not even sure they still make those in .223 cal. cuz it tears up the rifling in the barrel.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



I've detailed why the Philly thing was intimidating, please detail how the AZ thing was intimidating and to whom it was intimidating.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Just out of curiosity, since Montana is an open carry state, why didn't that NRA guy bring a gun?
> ...



And thus it IS intimidating.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> No, from a safety standpoint, I don't think it's a good idea. I've seen enough accidental discharges in the Army of all kinds of weapons to think that it's fairly hazardous.



One question I have had and not had answered, is if the rifles were actually loaded.  I don't think I have seen that information come out yet.  In my opinion, the message was still the same: "STFU or Bang! you're dead".



Tech_Esq said:


> But, it is indicative that some people in this country have been pushed, by the proposed policies of this government, to the point where they think it is important to "warn" the government that they are going too far.
> 
> It's not something I'm ready to do at this point, but I'm sure there is a point where I too would feel that it is necessary. As would all people who believe in the true purpose of the second amendment; to act as a check on the overreaching of government.



Thank you.  That is how I feel and one of the messages I have been trying to get across.

Immie


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I'm aware that it's an open carry state. I also know the guy interviewed wasn't from AZ. I live in an open carry state myself. I never *once* said they didn't have the right to do so. I said it was stupid and intimidating.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



They weren't out there as "Joe private citizen" they were representing their organization. They were in the "uniform" of the black militant. Shabazz is the head of the New Black Panther Party. You think it would be accurate reporting to omit that fact?

I think they could have run the film without commentary and had that effect.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> I never *once* said they didn't have the right to do so. I said it was stupid and intimidating.



That is a message that none of them seem to understand.

Immie


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously stupidity not guns kill far rightwingers.  Bunch of nutjobs.
> ...



Tech_Esq will realize what he wrote eventually.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Again, no evidence that they said anything to _voters_. But regardless, they were intimidating. 

As far as what happened in AZ, how do YOU know that there weren't people who didn't stand or go where they'd planned to be because of the presence of armed protesters?


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > No, from a safety standpoint, I don't think it's a good idea. I've seen enough accidental discharges in the Army of all kinds of weapons to think that it's fairly hazardous.
> ...



When I was trying to find the video of the interview for dive yesterday, I saw a photo of the back of the guy from the interview. A comment by a recent vet said he saw that the rifle was loaded and there was another in his back pocket. You could also see his sidearm from that angle.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



If your point is that the government is intimidated, then all I can say is, I certainly hope so.

If your point is that other people at the event were intimidated, I would say that I haven't found an objective reason why they should be, but it's clear that people on the left wet their pants when they see a gun, so there may have been some who were irrationally afraid. I'll give you that.

As I've said all throughout this thread, if the folk with firearms had brandished them or even hassled the individuals at the meeting, then, I would agree that they were intimidating. But, if all they had were legal weapons, carried legally, without brandishing, (and even if they were shouting anti-government slogans etc.) they are good to go in my book. If they were saying kill this one or that one or making threats of violence against anybody there, then that's not OK and they should have been arrested.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> No, from a safety standpoint, I don't think it's a good idea. I've seen enough accidental discharges in the Army of all kinds of weapons to think that it's fairly hazardous.



Do you not think there could have been others present who were aware of the same hazards, and therefore kept their distance, thus NOT being in a place where they had planned to be?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



The vet has no way of knowing whether there were rounds in the magazine that was inserted in the weapon. If the guy was locked and loaded, he was an idiot for about 8 million reasons.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



And what ties do these guys in AZ have? We know from teh google that the interviewer sympathizes with a militia group that was convicted for plotting to blow up federal buildings... that wasn't mentioned in the CNN report or in the news articles. I didn't see much about connections (or an attempt to find any connections) of those carrying weapons in AZ and any groups or factions. 

But _" OMG!!! Black Panthers!!!"_ was in every other sentence. Fox reporter even asked the guy why he was dressed that way. Is it illegal?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > No, from a safety standpoint, I don't think it's a good idea. I've seen enough accidental discharges in the Army of all kinds of weapons to think that it's fairly hazardous.
> ...



Now we're getting into minutia. I can't see video from where I am. But my understanding is that the armed folks were all outside the event or at the rear of the event. If that is true, then, I guess, but it's not like they were in some prime location.

I can tell you that I would not have been near them. Not because I would have been intimidated, but for the same reason when you see a truck driving down the road and the load it's carrying doesn't look secure enough, you kind of keep clear. I'm not intimidated, just safety conscious.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


I will see if I can find it again...if I can remember how I got to the page.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


Emma is no racist
take that back
SOME people ARE intimidated by people of other ethnicities and cultures, mostly out of ignorance
but, Emma wasnt saying YOU were


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > No, from a safety standpoint, I don't think it's a good idea. I've seen enough accidental discharges in the Army of all kinds of weapons to think that it's fairly hazardous.
> ...



Actually, the dude who had the sign at one of the first ones with the pistol, when he was interviewed and asked, he said an unloaded gun is useless.

The guys in AZ?  Same deal.  Most of the weapons were loaded.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> The black panther with the club was told by the police to leave. The guys with the guns were allowed to stay.
> 
> Why?
> 
> I have no idea. Both were intimidating.


there is a fundamental difference there ravi, i know you are not functional enough to understand that
but one site was a rally the other was a VOTING place


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


What would have been intimidating to people with the guys in PA? Concern for safety? If not, then what? 

If those weapons kept people (in PA and AZ) away from where they planned to be, that's a form of intimidation. They certainly wouldn't have been confident they were safe.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > The black panther with the club was told by the police to leave. The guys with the guns were allowed to stay.
> ...


I understand the difference but it really doesn't matter. Intimidation is intimidation.

I don't think there is enough sympathy out there to go along with these quasi-militia types...not too many Americans are going to agree that politicians and/or people that support health care reform should be shot. The elderly, the military, government workers, retired military, retired government workers...all have government subsidized health care and I never hear them complaining about it.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



In PA, it would have been that the guys were acting like they might hit you if you did the wrong thing. If the people in AZ were acting that way, then you are right. If not, then there is a difference and you're not right.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Oscar Wao said:


> Making it so obvious...dumb assed move.  I mean, seriously, being THAT flamboyant...


thats Ron Paul supporters for ya


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 19, 2009)

You know.........remember when those 2 protesters were wearing homemade t-shirts that said Bush with a circle and a line through it, and on the back it said "No Bush"?

They were not admitted to the rally.

But now, the GOP thinks it's okay to bring loaded weapons to them.

Personally?  I think guns are more dangerous than t-shirts, but then again, I've actually handled weapons.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Are these militia types? I hadn't heard that.

I think you're making a mistake when you narrow the focus to just one issue. I don't think people on the right are looking at this on an issue by issue basis. They are looking at Cap and Tax, Health care, bail outs, Czars and the litany goes on....of issues all happening at the same time.

They are looking at the expansion of government, the expansion of debt at a rate that would make Bush blush and calling bull shit.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



It's called sarcasm Jake. You said, "bunch of nutjobs"

When I said, "Yeah....not like you." That would be a sarcastic remark implying that you too are a nutjob.

I would have written, Jake will realize what he wrote eventually, but I realized that you wouldn't.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



I haven't seen anything that links the AZ protesters to militia groups, except Ravi's post. If you have something on that, I'd be glad to look at it.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


The spokesman for the guy with the semi is connected to the Viper Militia...a nineties militia group that stockpiled weapons, fertilizer (_ala_ T. McVeigh) and practiced blowing things up on film.

Funny they weren't upset about unneeded wars, bail outs or any wasteful spending under Bush. It's as if they hibernate when Republicans are in office...which makes me think their agenda isn't quite kosher.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Wait, I though there were 12 guys with firearms. Now there is one guy with a semi-auto and spokesman? And, the spokesman, but not the guy, has a tie to some crazy militia group?

This is starting to get a little convoluted for me. Do you have a link or something I could look at to get all of this straight?


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


I'll look in a bit...but it shouldn't be tough to find, I think it was on the news.

This one guy has a tie to the militia, through his spokesperson. The others I've no idea...but reading the comments on this thread it seems logical to assume that those that talk about taking out the government will need a militia of some sort to accomplish their goal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Took him awhile, but he eventually realized that he screwed up.  Then tries to throw his silliness on me. Tsk Tsk.  Maybe we can name him tsk_esq, tsk_esq!


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


But you said you'd be concerned for your safety just because they were _there_. Those in PA would have been concerned for their safety.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Well, that was kind of my point. The only one I've seen so far was the guy who interviewed "chris" and that wasn't even reported in the news, not even by CNN who interviewed him. No one has _attempted_ to find out if there were any other affiliations.


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Ok. That's weird I just posted a reply and it didn't show up. 

Agents Seize Arsenal of Rifles and Bomb-Making Material in ArizonaMilitia Inquiry - The New York Times

That's one. It isn't the one I saw yesterday, so I'll hunt around some more later.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

My bad, it wasn't actually on the "news" but here are the links. First one about the guy Chris who had the semi and another about his spokesperson.

Obama protester's rifle part of 'publicity stunt'

Activist Who Staged Gun Interview At Obama Event Was Prominent Defender Of '90s Militia | TPMMuckraker


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> My bad, it wasn't actually on the "news" but here are the links. First one about the guy Chris who had the semi and another about his spokesperson.
> 
> Obama protester's rifle part of 'publicity stunt'
> 
> Activist Who Staged Gun Interview At Obama Event Was Prominent Defender Of '90s Militia | TPMMuckraker


the second link is a partisan moonbat site so i really dont give a rats ass what they say

the first one only says they planned to bring the guns to the event, and to that i say "hello, McFly" so what else is new


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> My bad, it wasn't actually on the "news" but here are the links. First one about the guy Chris who had the semi and another about his spokesperson.
> 
> Obama protester's rifle part of 'publicity stunt'
> 
> Activist Who Staged Gun Interview At Obama Event Was Prominent Defender Of '90s Militia | TPMMuckraker



Thanks. This is from one of your links:



> Hancock told CNN's Rick Sanchez on Tuesday that the gun display was planned well in advance. *Hancock met with a Phoenix police officer last week, informing him that he and others in his group planned to bring firearms.*
> 
> When Sanchez suggested many people would see it as a "publicity stunt," Hancock responded: "Absolutely."



It sounds like there is far less here than meets the eye.

Bunch of Ron Paul types that are out to make publicity. And, here I thought this was tinged with some danger. There's nothing less dangerous than Ron Paul types with or without weapons.....


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

btw, the event was planned by the Obama administration, does that make the event less meaningful?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> My bad, it wasn't actually on the "news" but here are the links. First one about the guy Chris who had the semi and another about his spokesperson.
> 
> Obama protester's rifle part of 'publicity stunt'
> 
> Activist Who Staged Gun Interview At Obama Event Was Prominent Defender Of '90s Militia | TPMMuckraker



Well if what the second link says is true.....and that's a BIG IF considering the source, then he's a 9/11 truther and must be a big wacky. Oh sorry, I already said he was a Ron Paul supporter.

Welp, I never claimed them, just said I was surprised that they were out this soon. Now I'm a little less surprised. But, seriously, there is now really nothing to see here. We just wasted 38 pages on jack shit.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Errr....Thanks?



> Ms. Napolitano, the United States Attorney, said the Viper Militia had no known connection to two recent terrorist attacks in the region: the Oklahoma City bombing 15 months ago and the derailment by sabotage of an Amtrak train outside Phoenix last October.



Ravi appreciates you stepping on her point....i think


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > My bad, it wasn't actually on the "news" but here are the links. First one about the guy Chris who had the semi and another about his spokesperson.
> ...





NOW you tell me!


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Did she say they were connected to OKC? From what I've read, it was especially alarming because it happened very soon after the bombing, not that they were connected. I'm sure that was announced because of that too.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> btw, the event was planned by the Obama administration, does that make the event less meaningful?



Haha,

When I first read your post, I was thinking, President Obama staged the Redneck (or Redneck wannabe's) with guns outside to make the Right look like fanatics.  

I must say, wouldn't that get my goat!  

Here I have unbelievably been speaking out against right wingers using left wing tactics to intimidate others only to find out that it was actually left wingers trying to make conservatives look bad... again!

Man!  That would just frigging PISS ME OFF!!

Immie


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 19, 2009)

I think its white supremists


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > btw, the event was planned by the Obama administration, does that make the event less meaningful?
> ...


LOL
while that would be funny to prove, that wasnt my point
i mean the town hall event
not the protesters
LOL


the TOWN HALL was PLANNED OMG what will we ever do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> I think its white supremists



Nah. 

Libertarians. Some whacky NWO people. Ron Paul folks. No evidence of any white supremacists tho'.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > My bad, it wasn't actually on the "news" but here are the links. First one about the guy Chris who had the semi and another about his spokesperson.
> ...


 That's not very nice. I don't even know if it is true.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Truthmatters said:


> I think its white supremists


oh?
Alert the media, truthnevermatters has found a "black" white supremacist


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


She didn't. The Vipers were wannabees...I think McVeigh and there arrests pretty much stopped them for a while.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > btw, the event was planned by the Obama administration, does that make the event less meaningful?
> ...


Immie, no offense, but I've been told "redneck" is a racist term.


----------



## elvis (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > I think its white supremists
> ...



Alert all of USMB that the vermin formerly known as truthmatters is back.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > I think its white supremists
> ...





they are not mutually exclusive


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 19, 2009)

Probably ticked off banned retreads from a political message board.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Whoever told you that the term "redneck" was racist, did not know what they were talking about.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Immie, no offense, but I've been told "redneck" is a racist term.



Yeah? Well, I'm a redneck so I can use it, just like black people can use the N Word.  

Immie


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


i think it was sarcasm used in responding to other racist accusations when that was done


----------



## Emma (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > I think its white supremists
> ...



What's so strange about that? 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuuBVWo_W3U]YouTube - Black White Supremacist (HD)[/ame]


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immie, no offense, but I've been told "redneck" is a racist term.
> ...


 Okay, I've got no problem with that.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 19, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Ok. I don't pick up on sarcasm on a message board too well. lol


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 19, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I saw Otter Creek, whom I really don't know accuse me of being a racist in another thread for using "Redneck" and worse yet a leftie.  I ignored the comment realizing that she doesn't know anything at all about me.

Edit: or I should say I assumed she was speaking about me, because about 5 or 6 posts above her comment, was a post where I had used the term.

Here are the two posts, just imagine me a left winger and a racists!  ROFLMAO!!!



Immanuel said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > The point is pinhead, you're in no position to tell anyone when or where to exercise their rights.  Rednecks? That negro with the AR-15 didn't look like a redneck to me. How many times have you been shot  by a "redneck" before you were asked any questions?
> ...





Otter_Creek said:


> I hate left wing racists. Why do they always have to use the "R" word to describe law abiding citizens?



Immie


----------



## Ravi (Aug 19, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > BasicGreatGuy said:
> ...


I wasn't being sarcastic. There was a rather long thread on the subject here a while back.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The next time you read ignorant drivel like that, you can either ignore it, or take the time to educate the person on what the actual definition is. 

If that poster actually told you that, they are ignorant of the meaning of racist. Being offended by truth does not equate to racist, as so many are oft to yell on message boards.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 19, 2009)

Ravi said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


yes, i know YOU werent being sarcastic
the person telling you that was
LOL


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 19, 2009)

Next thing ya know, the GOP is going to have Pain in the Ass Palin go to the next one with a 30.06.

Wonder if they're going to have her wear a bikini?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 19, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Immie, no offense, but I've been told "redneck" is a racist term.
> ...



My pa is a redneck ... and a Democrat ...


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 19, 2009)

Emma said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



So it's okay to intimidate voters when they are actually voting..something which is expressly forbidden by law...but it's not okay to protest at town hall meetings, a venue specifically for people to air their concerns and opinions?

Typical fascist attitude.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 19, 2009)

Particularly since the show of arms was in no way intimidating to the ppl who attended.

This sort of behavior is how tyranny is executed. Intimidate ppl into voting against their conscience...and eliminate all protesters from the venues where they might get the opportunity to voice dissent.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


Please find my post that says it's ok to intimidate voters. Thanks


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Particularly since the show of arms was in no way intimidating to the ppl who attended.



How do you know that?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 20, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Please send me his name and number.  We'll have to work on him to make him independent.  These parties are killing America.  It is time to give them an attitude adjustment and the only way to do that peacefully is not to vote for either party.

Immie


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Particularly since the show of arms was in no way intimidating to the ppl who attended.
> ...



How do YOU know it was? I have seen not one story from ANYONE claiming they were intimidated. NOT ONE. The films of the event do not show anyone that appear to be intimidated, nor of people leaving the arae or cringing back from the armed people.

And again just for you, the Secret Service decides where their jurisdiction is. Those people were no threat to the President or anyone else and were LEGALLY allowed to be there and be armed. Arizona is a open carry State. People carry weapons anywhere they want except into Federal Government buildings. The public in Arizona is quite used to seeing armed people all over the place and they do not cringe in terror at the sight nor feel intimidated when the guy at Mc Donalds has a weapon.

You nor any of your buddies have made a single post that even hints at ANY intimidation at all. Yet you keep claiming it is true. You made the claim prove it. One does not prove a negative, it is YOUR responsibility to prove your claim.


----------



## Neser Boha (Aug 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...





> "*Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends*."





> "When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance," Solop said. "*It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication.*"
> He said he's never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. "The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation," he said.


-- Taken out of the article cited in the OP

I'm sorry... what were you saying again?



> He said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential for something tragic happening," he said.



All pretty intelligent and convincing arguments against stupid-ass rednecks that would do that shit.  Yeah, stupid-ass rednecks.  During Bush's term government was infiltrating peace group meetings and peaceful anti-war groups, but the fuckface rednecks are allowed to walk around with assault rifles around Obama.  All I have to say is what the fuck?!?


----------



## mal (Aug 20, 2009)

Racist, Gun nut, Rightwing, Cracker ass Crackers!...

OOPS!...



peace...


----------



## Neser Boha (Aug 20, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Racist, Gun nut, Rightwing, Cracker ass Crackers!...
> 
> OOPS!...
> 
> ...



Are you trying to imply that a black-american or a person dressed in slacks and a button-up shirt can't be a redneck?  Oooh ... you can't be more wrong.  Stupid fucks come in all colors and even in Armani suits whether you like it or not ... Stupidity doesn't discriminate, my friend.


----------



## mal (Aug 20, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Racist, Gun nut, Rightwing, Cracker ass Crackers!...
> ...



How long have you been this Racist?...



peace...


----------



## Care4all (Aug 20, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...





AllieBaba said:


> Particularly since the show of arms was in no way intimidating to the ppl who attended.
> 
> This sort of behavior is how tyranny is executed. Intimidate ppl into voting against their conscience...and eliminate all protesters from the venues where they might get the opportunity to voice dissent.



Why in Heavens Name did these people need to wear loaded guns IN ORDER TO PROTEST what they are upset about IF IT WERE NOT TO INTIMIDATE those people around them or the President?

It says IN THE ARTICLE that the people around them WERE intimidated, why are you saying FALSELY that they were not?

Care


----------



## Neser Boha (Aug 20, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Allie et al. can't be bothered with such subtleties as facts... you know that.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Racist, Gun nut, Rightwing, Cracker ass Crackers!...
> ...



Are you're a prime example!


----------



## Neser Boha (Aug 20, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...





Nice try.


----------



## Neser Boha (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



Do you have a point?  An argument that could successfully counter what I just said or do you just like trolling?


----------



## mal (Aug 20, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Neser Boha said:
> ...



How do you Argue with Ignorant Racism?...

You are an Ignorant Mother Fucker.

Seriously, Reconsider what you just said about someone of Color.

Generalizing Shit, you.

Because he doesn't Agree with you, he is basically as Robert Byrd (D) put, a "White ******"...

Polite Racism is still Racism, little girl.

Grow the Fuck up!



peace...


----------



## Neser Boha (Aug 20, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



You seriously need to get off the rock.  Nobody is going to be accusing me of racism especially when I haven't said anything remotely racist.  It was you who posted a picture of a black dude with a rifle on his back in the context of this thread.  If it were a black dude carrying an assault rifle to an Obama protest, I'd say the same shit about him as I'd say about the gap-toothed cracker standing next to him.  Does he deserve a better treatment because he's black and dressed for success?  Fuck that shit.  I think it's time for another hit, don't let me make you late... the junkie itch must be a bitch.


----------



## mal (Aug 20, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> You seriously need to get off the rock.  Nobody is going to be accusing me of racism especially when I haven't said anything remotely racist.  It was you who posted a picture of a black dude with a rifle on his back in the context of this thread.  If it were a black dude carrying an assault rifle to an Obama protest, I'd say the same shit about him as I'd say about the gap-toothed cracker standing next to him.  Does he deserve a better treatment because he's black and dressed for success?  Fuck that shit.  I think it's time for another hit, don't let me make you late... the junkie itch must be a bitch.



You simply don't see how Racist you are... That's Sad.



peace...


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 20, 2009)

Are you guys for real, or is it just that my sarcasm meter is failing?  How has anyone managed to interpret her statement that color doesn't matter in judging someone as racist?  Seems the opposite to me.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Neser Boha said:
> ...



Yes I have a point and I've made it. And my point is, you are STUPID!!!  And I base that on your asinine statement. You basically said that blacks can be "rednecks", ok, I'll give you that. But then you went on to say that "stupid fucks" come in all colors, implying that "rednecks" are "stupid fucks", and I think you exhibit pure stupidity and ignorance in that assertion. And it clearly proves you to be a bigot as well as a hypocrite.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 20, 2009)

Isn't that what redneck means?  Someone who's stupid and uneducated with country flavor thrown in?  That's how I've always heard it used (I'm from Georgia.)  Nonstupid and nonracist country types were Good ol' boys or country or (less often) children of the soil.  I always liked the children of the soil one.  Sounds like a Stephen King novel.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

What's the difference between a redneck and a good ol boy?

Rednecks breed farm animals, good ol boys get emotionally involved.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> What's the difference between a redneck and a good ol boy?
> 
> Rednecks breed farm animals, good ol boys get emotionally involved.


What's that? Rednecks breed with farm animals?


----------



## Neser Boha (Aug 20, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> Isn't that what redneck means?  Someone who's stupid and uneducated with country flavor thrown in?  That's how I've always heard it used (I'm from Georgia.)  Nonstupid and nonracist country types were Good ol' boys or country or (less often) children of the soil.  I always liked the children of the soil one.  Sounds like a Stephen King novel.



They're just deflecting the conversation from the main point - that people (ok, I'll refrain from using the label - rednecks) that bring assault rifles to rallies are stupid fucks whether or not the law of the state allows them to do so.

Also, I lived in GA for 9 years and the word 'redneck' has ALWAYS been used in a derogatory term and was basically synonymous with simple-minded dumbfuck - and had hardly anything to do with a chicken farmer (unless he/she was a simple-minded dumbfuck).  Say hi to ATL for me... I'm starting to miss the ol' Hawwtlanta...


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 20, 2009)

Atlanta's a city. Redneck is a derogatory term used in the same way "******" is. It's used by people to demean those outside their own realm of experience. Namely country people who have a different political or religious outlook and who haven't spent their lives catching the city culture.

Yes, it's always been a derogatory term. Just because everyone uses it doesn't make it "okay". Blacks use the term "******" too, and it doesn't make it any more palatable or acceptable.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 20, 2009)

And the people I've seen who were interviewed regarding carrying their firearms were neither stupid nor uneducated. They spoke better English than our erstwhile president, and were quite articulate.

They aren't "stupid" because they've chosen to wear their firearms legally to town hall meetings. What  a person's political views are have absolutely nothing to do with their intelligence, regardless of what the liberalistas would like to tell everyone. Believe me, liberalism does not denote intelligence, any more than republicanism denotes stupidity.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

I'm really not surprised by the ignorance of you people. I suggest you research the origin of the word "redneck". Apparently society sees fit to change the meaning of the word to be an insult to rural Americans.  I am not insulted by the ignorance of those that try to use redneck as a insult, I actually pity their ignorance.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 20, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> And the people I've seen who were interviewed regarding carrying their firearms were neither stupid nor uneducated. They spoke better English than our erstwhile president, and were quite articulate.
> 
> They aren't "stupid" because they've chosen to wear their firearms legally to town hall meetings. Wha*t  a person's political views are have absolutely nothing to do with their intelligence*, regardless of what the liberalistas would like to tell everyone. Believe me, liberalism does not denote intelligence, any more than republicanism denotes stupidity.



*[All Nazis and militarists solemnly nod.]*


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


its been told over and over, they did it as a stunt to GET ATTENTION
and look how much they are getting


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

My husband and I are both concealed carry permit holders.  ( hubby insisted I get mine) 

   Hubby is a gun collector . Fanatic collector actually.   Just has to have at least one of each he likes.  


   Point being that doesn't matter .  I have already written every congress person , senator and the president to urge congress to pass legislation to make it illegal to have a gun anywhere near a elected representative most especially the president.  

    There is a time and place for everything.   And the place for weapons is nowhere around a congress person , senator or our President.  

   Perhaps they should pass something like the no drugs within a mile of schools law except it should be no guns within a mile of elected representatives.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> My husband and I are both concealed carry permit holders.  ( hubby insisted I get mine)
> 
> Hubby is a gun collector . Fanatic collector actually.   Just has to have at least one of each he likes.
> 
> ...



Just out of curiosity, how far away do you think people should be required to stay away from elected officials when carrying a weapon?  What if they are armed and an official steps around the corner in front of them?  Edit: also, FYI, the gun toters in this situation were actually not even near the President.

I started this thread and I have a problem with people at this event being armed because I still believe they were there in order to intimidate others, but I don't think I like your idea and I do not own a gun.

Immie


----------



## Care4all (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Neser Boha said:
> ...



Well darn then, they sure knew what they were doing!!!      And I don't think it truly helps gun rights advocates when people go and act silly like this!

Care


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Yes, it was intimidation, and I wouldn't want any of those idiots in AZ to show up armed at any more town meetings.

You do realize that the guy doing the interviews with other people who brought guns (the dude with the mike who had a pistol on his hip), has ties to a militia organization called "Viper".  

When Viper was busted, and 7 people went to jail for conspiracy to blow up several government buildings, they found many things there..........fertilizer, weapons, training tapes showing the group blowing stuff up.......

He defended them publicly and stated that they had a right to have those weapons.

Incidentally, Timothy McVeigh (you know.......the guy that blew up the Murrah building), only lived 100 miles away from their training camp.  He also used their tactics.

The douchebag that organized the event?  He also said that Timothy McVeigh should have been let free.

Yeah........like I want people with ties like that running around with loaded weapons around elected officials.

Like I said.........if the GOP and their spokespersons keep it up, eventually someone is going to discharge a weapon at one of them.  Remember Cho and all the other crazies that like to shoot up places?  If another event is done like that, it would be great cover for them to carry out a mass shooting.

No.  No guns at town hall meetings.


----------



## hjmick (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> My husband and I are both concealed carry permit holders.  ( hubby insisted I get mine)
> 
> Hubby is a gun collector . Fanatic collector actually.   Just has to have at least one of each he likes.
> 
> ...



How do you plan to enforce such a law? House to house searches with gun seizure prior to a visit to the area by an elected official? Search every car, truck, and van and seize any weapons found? Search every office building and every business seizing every weapon found? How many rights are you willing to trample to enforce this new law of yours?


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> wvpeach said:
> 
> 
> > My husband and I are both concealed carry permit holders.  ( hubby insisted I get mine)
> ...



    I can respect the fact the law could cause some unintended problems Immie.  

    However we have to make a reasonable and logical decision about which would cause the greater harm.  

   Obviously having firearms around schools , universities , hospitals , subway stations, the president and other elected officials is something we would want to prohibit because the chance a loony does great damage is too great. 

   So not being a law maker , nor the smartest person in the world.  I can only offer suggestions.  

   At most of these town halls or presidential events road blocks are set up to keep people from driving car bombs into the area.  Since 911 that precaution is taken anyway. 

   So makes sense to me we could easily prohibit firearms within that same area.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

You know.........before the GOP went stark raving nuts, the issue of to bring or not to bring a weapon to a town hall meeting or where the President was at wasn't even there.

Most Americans wouldn't have thought of doing such a thing 2 years ago.  Now?  It's almost like they're trying to start the American Revolution part II.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.........before the GOP went stark raving nuts, the issue of to bring or not to bring a weapon to a town hall meeting or where the President was at wasn't even there.
> 
> Most Americans wouldn't have thought of doing such a thing 2 years ago.  Now?  It's almost like they're trying to start the American Revolution part II.



I think we established a couple of pages back that this was some Ron Paul people out for a publicity stunt. While I know that Ron Paul is technically a Republican, saying his adherents are is like saying Ross Perot's adherents were all GOP. It's the same bag of nuts.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Yeah.......but they are egged on by the likes of Limp Idiot and Blech.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yes, it was intimidation, and I wouldn't want any of those idiots in AZ to show up armed at any more town meetings.
> 
> You do realize that the guy doing the interviews with other people who brought guns (the dude with the mike who had a pistol on his hip), has ties to a militia organization called "Viper".
> 
> ...



Except they aren't GOP nuts. They are Ron Paul nuts. Not the same thing, just ask them. 

By the way, the organizer had exactly the same ties to the militias as Barrack Obama did to domestic terrorists. Just sayin'. So, I'd be careful where you sling that brush and how broadly you want to paint with it.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 20, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it was intimidation, and I wouldn't want any of those idiots in AZ to show up armed at any more town meetings.
> ...


Obama isn't on record championing the cause of domestic terrorists.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah.......but they are egged on by the likes of Limp Idiot and Blech.



Theory. Most of those types don't like Rush. I'm no sure who Blech is a reference to.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 20, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Are you sure? I can't come up with a positive statement that he made about his friend's activities in the 1970s? Hmmmm....I might have to take you up on that challenge.


----------



## wvpeach (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know.........before the GOP went stark raving nuts, the issue of to bring or not to bring a weapon to a town hall meeting or where the President was at wasn't even there.
> 
> Most Americans wouldn't have thought of doing such a thing 2 years ago.  Now?  It's almost like they're trying to start the American Revolution part II.





    It's on the main coming from pundits at Fox news and the Rush Limbaugh sorts. 
   They have been pretty vocal in their scare tactics.   

   Stuff like Obama has set up concentration camps for Americans. 
   That the tree of liberty may need to be watered by tyrants blood. 

    The right wing loons lap that stuff up and trust me many of them are sitting in their homes waiting for the next civil war or the race war they have always believed was coming to start. 

   They are dangerous.  

   It would take the right spark to ignite this and we'd have some of these nutty right wingers take pot shots at people off clock towers.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.......but they are egged on by the likes of Limp Idiot and Blech.
> ...



Blech = Beck.

Most of those people don't like Limp Idiot?  Then please explain to me why the RNC chairman is afraid of him, and most people in the GOP consider Limp Idiot to be their spokesperson?

Your concept of reality is twisted.  What planet do you spend most of your time on?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know.........before the GOP went stark raving nuts, the issue of to bring or not to bring a weapon to a town hall meeting or where the President was at wasn't even there.
> ...



I believe what you are talking about is this quote:



> God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.



From that right wing loon, Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Newby (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > wvpeach said:
> ...



Yeah, it makes perfect sense to have everyone but 'the loonies' unarmed in public places.  I wonder how the people who were killed at the Viginia Tech massacre had wished that just one person there had been armed and able to kill that idiot before he murdered more people.  They always pick places that they know people are unarmed, did you ever notice that?  I wonder if there hadn't been a law against carrying a weapon on campus if more lives could have been saved.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

You know Tech, you're an idiot.

People COULDN'T continually be well informed back then.  Today it can be done, but you've got to stay off of such media outlets like FAUX News.  

Today, you've got the 'net, cable, newspapers as well as other media to get information, only now, you've got to sort through it yourself.  

What color is the sky on your planet?


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Not the same planet as the Lyndon Larouche Democrat (self-described) that Barney Frank asked that question of yesterday.

One more time, real slow. The people we are talking about with the guns and stuff.....Ron Paul people. Put the pipe down and repeat after me.....Ron Paul nuts. Not GOP. Ron Paul. Those people (Ron Paul people) don't generally like Rush.

GOP people, generally do like Rush (on some level). Two differ....hey put the damned pipe down, I saw you reaching for it.....ent groups of people.

I know what planet you're on, I don't need to ask. Stoner


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Listen fucktard, Limp Idiot, Blech and Billo the Clown have ALL been calling for a revolution.  Shit, on FAUX and Fiends, I've heard some of their anchors say it was okay to taser someone from Code Pink JUST FOR BEING THERE.

Either get a glass belly button installed or pull your head out of your ass.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know Tech, you're an idiot.
> 
> People COULDN'T continually be well informed back then.  Today it can be done, but you've got to stay off of such media outlets like FAUX News.
> 
> ...



On Planet District of Columbia, the skies are blue today. Can you see through the smoky cloud around your head to get a glimpse at the sky on your planet?

What makes you think people were less able to be inform then or that that was even the point of what Jefferson was saying? He was saying you you get fat, dumb and lazy and don't give a shit if left to your own natural devices. A revolution makes you sit up and take notice of what the fuck is actually going on.

Never mind. I'm wasting my time. Return to your stupor.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Listen fucktard, Limp Idiot, Blech and Billo the Clown have ALL been calling for a revolution.  Shit, on FAUX and Fiends, I've heard some of their anchors say it was okay to taser someone from Code Pink JUST FOR BEING THERE.
> 
> Either get a glass belly button installed or pull your head out of your ass.



Link please.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Well......considering that Benjamin Franklin had to invent the Postal Service and newspapers, I'd kinda think it was a given that information was hard to come by.

Planet DC.  Figures..........the place where all blowhards go to blow.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Listen fucktard, Limp Idiot, Blech and Billo the Clown have ALL been calling for a revolution.  Shit, on FAUX and Fiends, I've heard some of their anchors say it was okay to taser someone from Code Pink JUST FOR BEING THERE.
> ...



Listen idiot.......just watch that crap sometime.  Remember just a little while when Blech said that Obama was a racist?  FAUX News denounced his statement and distanced themselves.

Still don't understand why that fucker wasn't fired.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah.......but they are egged on by the likes of Limp Idiot and Blech.


uh, most Ron Paul supporters HATE rush and Beck
so yet another failure


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


LOL
again you miss the fucking point
most Ron Paul supporters are libertarians(yes, small "L")
so the GOP is not in their corner


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


in other words, you CANT provide a link


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



*"rednecks" are "stupid fucks"*

That's right.  Just because you inherited some money doesn't make you smaht'.  Most red necks are stupid AND poor.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Why do you watch that crap?


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 20, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > You know Tech, you're an idiot.
> ...



Huh?


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

Tech_Esq said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I accidently found that article, so I figured I'd better get this posted before I lost it (again). 



> "It is extremely disturbing that you have that kind of weapon in close proximity to where the president is," said Ruben Gallego, a military veteran and Arizona Democratic Party official who observed the man.
> 
> "He was demonstrating his Second Amendment rights," Gallego added, "but he was clearly there to intimidate people who were there exercising their First Amendment rights."
> 
> Gallego, who served a tour of duty in Iraq, said he believes the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle was loaded. *He spotted a magazine in the firearm and another in the man's back pocket.*



He's the 'expert' (or rather, has the experience), so I can't argue with him over that. 

azcentral.com blogs - : Man with AR-15 rifle at Obama rally sparks concerns


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Neser Boha said:
> ...



You certainly have no problem displaying your stupidity, I guess you must be a redneck.

When did I inherit money?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 20, 2009)

wvpeach said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > wvpeach said:
> ...



First let me welcome you to USMB.  Today is the first time I have read any of your posts.

They already do prevent weapons from getting to close to government officials in these kinds of things.  The gun toters at the Presidential rally were not close enough to the President and if they had been the Secret Service would had stopped them.

I don't think the idea is that practical seeing as how officials are already protected and I personally would not care to see such drastic steps to inhibit people's constitutional rights.  Given a threat, law enforcement will protect the officials.  We don't need laws that duplicate other laws.

Immie


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



He's an expert at what? Determing how everyone around him feels? Fact is he was giving his opinion, nothing more. Have you ever seen an AR-15 up close and in person? Having a clip in the forearm doesn't mean it was loaded, however only an idiot would carry an uloaded weapon. So I would assume is was more than likely loaded.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

Douglas Ducharme, 50, a dispatcher from Tempe, was dressed like the grim reaper in a black hood and gray cape, standing on the corner of Second Street and Adams.

Holding a sign that said AARP NOW RIP, he was *protesting any changes to the current health-care system. "This is America. We have the right to choose and the freedom to choose*," he yelled.

-------------

"Because I can do it," he said when asked why he was armed. *"In Arizona, I still have some freedoms."*

*Two police officers were staying very close to the man.*

---------

Elaine Gangbluff, *73*, of Phoenix, held a sign that read: "If you think health care is expensive now, wait till it's free."

"*I'm strongly opposed to government running health care*. That should be between my doctor and myself," she said.
---------------

Standing on the corner near Third and Washington streets, he stopped and said those opposed to health-care reform were *only doing so because the president "is Black."*

Immediately, a group of people opposed to the president's plan surrounded him, yelling "race baiter, race baiter, race baiter" at the top of their lungs.

Doug Ducharme, of Tempe, was one of those yelling.

*"This has nothing to do with the president being Black," he said. "My ex-wife is Black."*

--------

Jim Mariman, a veteran from Idaho who served in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, was spending his time outside the convention center rather than in it.

"What we are seeing here is people speaking their minds and their hearts," Mariman said.

Mariman is opposed to Obama's health-care reform plan, but enjoys the fact that those who disagree with him, can disagree with him openly.

*"These people can protest because I gave them the right."*

-----------

Another protester, 12-year-old Micah Vandenboom, was there with her parents.

She held a sign that made clear her opposition to the president's health-care reform plans.

"Under Obama, everyone will get the same health care, that's socialism," she said. "*It has failed in other countries, you know, like Europe*."

Obama: 'Honored and humbled' to speak before Valley vets

People are Teh Funneh


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


i read somewhere that the AR-15 was loaded and the guy carrying it said so


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> Douglas Ducharme, 50, a dispatcher from Tempe, was dressed like the grim reaper in a black hood and gray cape, standing on the corner of Second Street and Adams.
> 
> Holding a sign that said AARP NOW RIP, he was *protesting any changes to the current health-care system. "This is America. We have the right to choose and the freedom to choose*," he yelled.
> 
> ...


the only funny one was the last one
and give the kid a break, he's only TWELVE


----------



## Neser Boha (Aug 20, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> And the people I've seen who were interviewed regarding carrying their firearms were neither stupid nor uneducated. They spoke better English than our erstwhile president, and were quite articulate.
> 
> They aren't "stupid" because they've chosen to wear their firearms legally to town hall meetings. What  a person's political views are have absolutely nothing to do with their intelligence, regardless of what the liberalistas would like to tell everyone. Believe me, liberalism does not denote intelligence, any more than republicanism denotes stupidity.



Right ... I'm glad you cleared it up for us like that.  Everyone should be aware of them dangerous 'liberalistas' out there...

However, carrying an assault fucking rifle to a rally, a town-hall meeting, or anywhere such as that (especially around the president) is either down-right retarded or does it deliberately in order to get a certain very negative message over.  These people are either stupid as fuck or dangerous.  This is not a normal or desirable behavior.  If anyone should be under any sort of surveillance, it should be them.  Not some hippie anti-war protesters (we've heard all these stories from Bush-era). These fucks are from the ranks of McVeigh.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



I was responding to a conversation I was having with tech regarding if the weapon was loaded or not. 

BTW, I'm looking for an interview where the young man either says it's loaded or implies that it is (as you stated, it would be stupid for it to not be loaded). In the meantime, a recorded conversation he had with a couple of women who say they are uncomfortable and nervous having him walk around them and their children (and in the group in general) with those weapons. I think it's safe to assume the gun and rifle are loaded, as he says he'd not hesitate to use them _there_, if need be. (so I guess tech has his 8 million reasons to believe the guy's an idiot)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz-c4aUmUfI&feature=related]YouTube - AR-15, Open Carry - Answering Questions[/ame]

And for the record, I agree with everything the man says. But I still think he was stupid to bring a loaded AR-15 and handgun to the rally.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



You are too ignorant to have made any..and you claim to write alll the checks in your little bumfuck town. Logical deduction.. Maybe you parade up and down your one horse street selling your ass in your cute little cowboy suit..who knows.?

And what IS up with the cowboy outfit?  I was riding cutting horses when I was 10 and never had the desire to dress up like the faggot cowboy in the "village People".


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...


I thought I either read it or heard it in an interview, too. In any case, he tells the women in the video above that he wouldn't hesitate to use it that day if need be. That tells me he's either blowing smoke or it's loaded. He doesn't come across as someone doing the former.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


yeah, as it has been said over and over, it was a libertarian group pulling a stunt to get media attention

and it worked


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Douglas Ducharme, 50, a dispatcher from Tempe, was dressed like the grim reaper in a black hood and gray cape, standing on the corner of Second Street and Adams.
> ...



(so I wonder where he heard healthcare in the country of Europe has failed?)

Nothing funny about a _73 year old_ claiming she doesn't want government running healthcare? 

Or a guy defending himself that he's not racist because his _ex_ is black?

Or a guy bragging about his freedoms while being shadowed all day by two cops? 

Or the man who thinks he _gave_ us the right to protest? (actually, that's more sad than funny)

Or the one who embraces our right to choose while wanting to deny that right?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



I wonder if those women realize they're in an open carry state and if they even know what that means. My answer to them would have been "it's a free country and you'e free to go walk where you feel more comfortable." I carry a sidearm and would not hesitate to use it either when the time came. After all that is the whole point behind carrying a weapon. It wouldn't make any sense to carry a weapon and not be ready, willing and able to use it when the time came.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


uh, ever hear of the EU? 

and there are a lot of people that dont want the government running ALL of healthcare
thats not funny, its true


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I think the video got pulled from youtube, or I'm not using the right key words to search for it. 

In any case, I posted it back on the threads here. 

I didn't pay attention at that time, but when I went looking for it again just now (thinking it was there he said the rifle and gun were loaded) I just typed in 4409. They are the group the interview was taped for and played on their *whatever it is* (internet radio? not sure what you'd call it)

Anywho. Take a look at what else they've done: 

YouTube - 4409


Border patrol "nazi" checkpoints


Alex Jones


Ron Paul and the "rigged elections"


The scheme to destroy the internet


"I confront a pirate spying on the residents of mesa via their mobile command center" [what the fuck??]


9/11 troofer shit


Moon landing was a hoax


Birfers (McCain AND Obama)


A whole lotta crap about traffic cams


And more!
They seem to be a very _special_ brand of crazy.

Does this mean this thread will get moved to the _Conspiracy!_ forum?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 20, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



If a cowboy hat is your definition of a "cowboy suit" or "outfit" then you got me. 

Fact is I worked for every dime I have. I started investing into real estate not long after I was released from prison, with Red Adair's help and generosity, I managed to do very well for myself. I own quite a bit of acreage and made some lucrative deals the biggest was selling some river bottom land to a developer that netted me 1.7 million dollars. Not bad for an ex-con. I don't write all the checks in Bonney, but I do employ a lot of folks. I doubt you could carry Doc Bar's lead rope.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


ah, NOW you are starting to get it


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Huggy is an idiot
its clear he has no idea what he is talking about


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Well, in Tech's opinion, it was dangerous and stupid. Even though he agrees with his right to carry. 

All this gun talk has me wanting to look into getting me one again...


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Well, I figured he was a bit off from what I saw on his website. 

Now tell me. 

What the hell are "pirates in their mobile command center"? 

And why are they spying on the citizens of Mesa?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


i wish i could get an AR-15
but i wouldnt carry it to a rally
LOL


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


you did the search, you tell me
LOL


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


EU isn't a country. 



> and there are a lot of people that dont want the government running ALL of healthcare
> thats not funny, its true



Sure, as long as they got _their_ piece of the pie


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


true, the EU isnt officially a country, but to a 12 year old it could confuse him
sheeesh, what are 12 year olds, 6th grade?
like i said, i'll give the kid a break


and as to the elderly, that has nothing to do with the government runing the WHOLE show


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



I really didn't want to click the video. But dammit, I just gotta...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd0Mr1iQE3Y]YouTube - 4409 -- Pirate admits Spying on residents from park![/ame]

The description:



> I confront a pirate spying on the residents of mesa via their mobile command center.
> 
> The residents of Mesa, AZ paid for a park they did NOT pay for a pirate training and interogation facility.
> 
> ...



ROFLMAO!!!

Pirates running amok in Arizona parks!!

 

(I love the closeup of the garbage bag LOL)


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


damnit all, now i gotta watch that
i bet it looks like an Alex Jones video with all scary music and everything


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Oh btw, the website in the video IS the website of the guy who interviewed "chris". 

So they ARE nuts 

BTW, I _loved_ the look on the cop's face, and how he intentionally fucked with the guy ('we're monitoring _everything_...')


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

So why are they called 'pirates'?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


well, at least they had better music than Alex Jones
LOL
but, yeah, a bunch of nuts
and i also loved the look on the cops face
like" i cant believe this guy is asking me these stupid questions"


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> So why are they called 'pirates'?


it said "POLICE" on the side of the truck
LOL
and last i knew, the city of Mesa owned the park and they run the POLICE Department
so, i guess they did have the right to have that mobile command unit in the part to serve the area


----------



## brewerboy (Aug 20, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Stupid logic.

If I were living in AZ and walked into a Circle K with a .45 on my hip, would you consider that a threat, as in, I'm gonna rob the place?

Plain and simple, AZ is an open-carry state. EVERY citizen who can legally own a firearm, can legally carry it around with them, providing that its in plain view.

Been awhile since I've checked the AZ gun laws, but I'm pretty sure theres not a "political rally" clause in there.

No laws were broken. No one was harmed. Whats the big deal?


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > So why are they called 'pirates'?
> ...



ONLY if the police confiscate the park and make it their own. 

Geez. Didn't you learn _anything_ from the video??? 

And now that we know the background of (at least 4 of) those who were carrying during the rally...still think it's no biggie? 

But then again, they were probably more worried about the pirates and traffic cams than they were about starting an uprising.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 20, 2009)

brewerboy said:


> Stupid logic.
> 
> If I were living in AZ and walked into a Circle K with a .45 on my hip, would you consider that a threat, as in, I'm gonna rob the place?
> 
> ...



The big deal, my friend, is that this was a political rally that was likely to get heated up.  People were there who might have wanted to speak out that may have been afraid to do so because these guys were hanging around.  They didn't know those guys.  They didn't know that one word about President Obama being the savior of the country by bringing about Healthcare Reform wouldn't send one or all of these men over the edge.

This wasn't a normal situation.  This wasn't just walking down the street carrying a weapon without confronting anyone at all.  This was a political rally where people went to discuss a very heated topic in today's society.  

Walking into a Circle K with a sidearm without an attitude that you are going to rob the place is one thing.  Hanging out at a political rally where there is going to be disagreement among all sides of the issue is intimidating and those guys knew it, because they were not stupid.  Anyone that may have thought about speaking out in favor of Obamacare may have been afraid to do so, because there is someone standing forty feet way from me, whom I don't know who might just get pissed off because I spoke out for Obamacare.  Thoughts of Va Tech and Columbine may have very well passed through many minds that day.

Immie


----------



## Soaring (Aug 20, 2009)

It's not a real bright idea to carry a weapon to a rally, but it is not illegal in Arizona or Texas for that matter.  In fact, since I have a right to conceal and carry, I could conceal it while at the rally.  The difference here is that since we have had so many presidents killed and wounded in the past, the secret service must have the unconstitutional right to limit firearms at rallies where the president is to speak.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


yes, i STILL think its no biggie
they are nutters
LOL


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Gotta keep a watch on the idiots at the back.

Or, as Green Day says, "know your enemy".


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 20, 2009)

Soaring said:


> It's not a real bright idea to carry a weapon to a rally, but it is not illegal in Arizona or Texas for that matter.  In fact, since I have a right to conceal and carry, I could conceal it while at the rally.  The difference here is that since we have had so many presidents killed and wounded in the past, the secret service must have the unconstitutional right to limit firearms at rallies where the president is to speak.



They already HAVE the right to establish any perimeter they want and to enforce no weapons inside that perimeter. Which is EXACTLY why these fake tears and whines are so stupid. If any of those guys were any kind of threat AT ALL, the Secret Service would have had the Cops arrest them. Or they would have done it themselves.

That would be why the Secret Service STATED for the RECORD no threat existed by them being where they were.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> > It's not a real bright idea to carry a weapon to a rally, but it is not illegal in Arizona or Texas for that matter.  In fact, since I have a right to conceal and carry, I could conceal it while at the rally.  The difference here is that since we have had so many presidents killed and wounded in the past, the secret service must have the unconstitutional right to limit firearms at rallies where the president is to speak.
> ...


There were two cops dedicated to following "chris" around. I wonder if they did that for each of the dozen or so carrying? And also, the cops said they were working in concert with (and I'd assume direction of) the secret service ... do you think there was a 'line' that if crossed, they would have been arrested? If so, do you think they'd warn the people of their limits, or just wait for them to screw up?

Keep in mind, we're talking about the _pirates_ here!


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

> That would be why the Secret Service STATED for the RECORD no threat existed by them being where they were.


That's probably true, but I _certainly_ don't expect the secret service to tip their hand and be specific about what they do or do not consider a threat. They aren't going to make a (public) big deal about any of this because it would only encourage others who might not be as restrained as apparently these people were. Have you ever heard any specifics about secret service investigations? That new book about the service says they keep that stuff close to their chest and don't talk about them because of risk of "copy cat" incidents. So I'm not surprised at all by their measured response. 

But I guarantee you these people were on their radar, big time.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Soaring said:
> ...


then who watched the other "dozen or so" carrying guns?
LOL
i dont think these nuts were a threat and likely only had passing supervison


----------



## caela (Aug 20, 2009)

MarcATL said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > cunclusion said:
> ...



Actually in AZ they can carry their guns into a bank and on public transportation so long as they carry them openly and not concealed. Granted if you walk into a bank with a gun on your hip you are probably going to have security keeping a very close eye on you, if not escorting you out because you pose a specific risk of robbing the place. On public transportation there's not a whole lot that can be done. As for the plane thing that often involved traveling across state lines and each state has differing rules, not to mention all the federal guidelines as well that bar you from carrying weapons on a flight which is why you don't see guns there.

Carrying into a bank may not be smart but it's not necessarily illegal either unless it is a federal bank and thus would fall under the mandate of no guns being allowed in State and Federal building as well as places like hospitals and schools.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



It was reported in several places (and the interviewer and chris even mentioned it) that there were two shadowing him. Why just shadow him? (other than he belongs to the nutters LOL) Wouldn't they have assigned people to watch the other people too? And if it was because of Hancock's group, there were at least 4 of them carrying (hancock, chris, woman interviewed, and the dumbass who asked chris to water the tree of liberty).


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

caela said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...




Aren't all banks considered Federal? I mean it's a Federal crime to rob a bank? In any case, I can see being allowed to carry in _public_ places, but private business should have the absolute right to deny firearms on their property.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


well, it seems a lot of the nutters are either Ron Paul supporters or Laruche people
that means they are less than about 2% of the electorate
not something to really be scared of


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 20, 2009)

shoot, divecon, you are a nth% by yourself.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Yeah.........nothing to be scared of a person walking around with a gun in an open carry state.

Keep telling yourself that.  Then go talk to the people who have lost family members to crazed gunmen.  Remember.........most of their family members said they had no idea that the person was ready to go snappy.

Tell that to the families of those that Cho took out.  He was hidden also until he killed all those people.  Tell that to the families of those on that street in the south where a guy drove down the street, killing all those people on their porches.

Tell that to the families of the DC Sniper.

Yeah........right........nothing to worry about........


----------



## caela (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> caela said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



I don't think that all banks are considered Federal buildings but I could very well be wrong about that, would have to look it up and honestly I am too tired tonight to bother googling that fact lol, my one year old has been keeping me busy. If they are all considered federal buildings then it would be illegal to carry in any of them whether there is an open carry law or not. 

 And I will agree that any private business should be able to post a sign saying "No Firearms allowed" on their door just like you would a "No Smoking" sign, it is after all THEIR property.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah.........nothing to be scared of a person walking around with a gun in an open carry state.
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.  Then go talk to the people who have lost family members to crazed gunmen.  Remember.........most of their family members said they had no idea that the person was ready to go snappy.
> 
> ...


neither DC nor VA are open carry states


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> shoot, divecon, you are a nth% by yourself.


wow, did your two brain cells actually come to that by themselves?


----------



## caela (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah.........nothing to be scared of a person walking around with a gun in an open carry state.
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.  Then go talk to the people who have lost family members to crazed gunmen.  Remember.........most of their family members said they had no idea that the person was ready to go snappy.
> 
> ...



Ummmmm...stupid question but what to incidents of people breaking the law in states that don't have open carry laws have to do with people in states that do. Your argument would hold much more water if you gave examples of the misuse of firearms from within the states actually being discussed.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



What does that have to do with the police shadowing them?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.........nothing to be scared of a person walking around with a gun in an open carry state.
> ...



Typical Dive Can't Sushi Boy response.  Pick one thing to harp on and ignore the intent.

Not every loon lives outside of an open carry state.  Remember that douchebag that raped that little 3 year old girl and put it on tape in Nevada (open carry state).

The point was Dive Can't, that in an open carry state where there is a town hall meeting, if there is a person who lives around there who has become fed up with life and decided to commit suicide by cop, they'd have a wonderful opportunity.

Figures you wouldn't get the point, it's at the top of your skull.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.........nothing to be scared of a person walking around with a gun in an open carry state.
> ...



I'm just curious because I think ABikerSailor is wrong on this in that it is not the open carry states or the fact that people are carrying in these states that I even have a problem with, but I was just thinking about the 14 people that lost their lives to Charles J. Whitman at the Univ. of Texas, Austin on August 1, 1966.  Was it legal to openly carry a weapon in Texas in 1966?  Would it have made a difference either way?

Immie


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.........nothing to be scared of a person walking around with a gun in an open carry state.
> ...


Oh I beg to differ 

We are not only open carry, the state pre-empts (is that the word???) all local laws. In other words NO locality can pass their own firearm restrictions. 

LIS > Code of Virginia > 15.2-915


 	prev | next
§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.

Nothing in this section shall prohibit a locality from adopting workplace rules relating to terms and conditions of employment of the workforce. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101 from acting within the scope of his duties.

The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility.

B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.

C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.


The guns people rank us as "gold"


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> caela said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Not unless the LAW gives them the authority to deny a protected right to a citizen. In North Carolina we have concealed carry but any business can put up a sign stating no carry on their property. Of course the first family that loses someone because of those signs will find out all about the right to sue.

And banks are not excluded here, it is up to the Bank to declare no carry.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Hey Sushi Boy.............looks like you just got your ass handed to you in pieces without any glue by Emma.

Good job Emma.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yeah.........nothing to be scared of a person walking around with a gun in an open carry state.
> 
> Keep telling yourself that.  Then go talk to the people who have lost family members to crazed gunmen.  Remember.........most of their family members said they had no idea that the person was ready to go snappy.
> 
> ...



Unbelievable You are a moron.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah.........nothing to be scared of a person walking around with a gun in an open carry state.
> ...



Unbelievable that I'm a moron?  You're right.  I'm not a moron.  Punctuation Really Grumpy Shithead (RGS) helps.

You on the other hand are a knuckle dragging, sloping forheaded Neanderthal who probably pees in the air and drinks it.

By the way............not only are you fucking stupid in this, but your religion is a FARCE!


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


hmm interesting
sorry, i thought for sure VA was not
thanks for the info


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


again, seek out professional help


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



So your entire argument is, that because some MIGHT abuse a right, that right should be removed? You might want to consider the ramifications of such an idiotic idea.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


it matters in the sense of they aren't a large group


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Speaking of idiots Really Grumpy Shithead, you are one of the first water.

I didn't say remove the right, I said NO GUNS AT TOWN HALL MEETINGS!  What part of that did your pea sized brain miss?

And the sad thing is, that 2 years ago, this wouldn't have been an issue because up until the GOP and others started getting stupid, this was not even thought of.

Did the VA cover your lobotomy?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Hey Sushi Slut.......might wanna get another response, as that one is getting a bit one trick pony.

Besides........what in that post pointed to me needing help?  I think it's you that is paranoid and delusional.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


its accurate


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > caela said:
> ...



I have a HUGE problem with that. 2nd amendment rights (and those contained within state constitutions) are to restrict the _government_ from infringing on your right to bear arms. I don't see how they can force someone to accept that on _private property_. Is it related to public accommodation?


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


You're welcome. 

I don't _think_ the DC snipers actually killed anyone (or even operated) _in_ DC. Maryland and Virginia I believe. But in the DC 'area', so it was easier and catchier I guess.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Might wanna check your tank mix Sushi Slut, it appears that your brain is oxygen starved.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Again, why should that matter? 

It only takes one, dive.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Thanks 

I wasn't trying to score points on him, just inform him that we do carry here. You should see it during hunting season.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Hey..........Montana is the same way (that's where I'm originally from).  Didn't know what store bought meat was until I was 12.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


uh, so far, they havent actually been violent, and they have no real political power or influence
that was my point


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Yep, Cho was just 1 person, and he took out over 30 people.

So was that dude in the south that killed over 10.

Emma's right Sushi Boy............it only takes 1.  Shit, for some assault rifles, you can carry MUCH ammo in 1 magazine.


By the way, ever heard of a thing called an "assassin"?  They work alone as well.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

Dammit. 

I had a point to make or a question or something and after scrolling past all the insults flying here I forgot what it was. I'm an old woman with diminishing brain power here. Don't get my 'roid rage going 

Why don't you all just put _"If I disagree with you, you're a moron"_ in your sigs to save time?


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The VA Tech shootings hit close to home. REALLY close to home. What a horrific day. My best friend's husband is a VA trooper and they live there. He responded that day and she was a complete wreck.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey..........Montana is the same way (that's where I'm originally from).  Didn't know what store bought meat was until I was 12.



I'm not much for red meat, but I do like venison. 

Interesting off topic tidbit... my dad's friend ate bear meat once and ended up in the hospital with a ruptured gut 'cuz the bear had been spiked by a porcupine. 

So let that be a lesson to ya.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

Well shit. Can't remember what I was going to say. 

The DC snipers were first prosecuted in VA because we have the death penalty, which the older one got. The kid got life without parole, then both were sentenced to 6 _consecutive_ life sentences without parole in MD to be served after they serve their time in VA lol. 

They ain't going anywhere.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 20, 2009)

Emma said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Hey..........Montana is the same way (that's where I'm originally from).  Didn't know what store bought meat was until I was 12.
> ...



Thanks for the info!  I'm not much for bear (too greasy), but elk and venison are my favorites.

Matter of fact, I like elk better than beef!

okay..........hijack over.


----------



## Emma (Aug 20, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



[hijack again] My eye doc when I was a little kid was a big hunter. In his waiting room he had a freakin' moose head hanging over the couch 

The antlers were so huge, he had to cut holes in the ceiling to make it fit. I remember just sitting there, mesmerized by Bullwinkle 

[/hijack]


----------



## mal (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> Well shit. Can't remember what I was going to say.
> 
> The DC snipers were first prosecuted in VA because we have the death penalty, which the older one got. The kid got life without parole, then both were sentenced to 6 _consecutive_ life sentences without parole in MD to be served after they serve their time in VA lol.
> 
> They ain't going anywhere.








Was it an Islam thing?...



peace...


----------



## Fatality (Aug 21, 2009)

people in AZ walk around with guns all the time. you fucking easterners are some scared fucking rabbits.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

Fatality said:


> people in AZ walk around with guns all the time. you fucking easterners are some scared fucking rabbits.



Yeah. We Virginians don't know a _thing_ about open carry


----------



## mal (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> Fatality said:
> 
> 
> > people in AZ walk around with guns all the time. you fucking easterners are some scared fucking rabbits.
> ...



And if the Left had their way, Emma...

Be Honest.



peace...


----------



## Care4all (Aug 21, 2009)

Fatality said:


> people in AZ walk around with guns all the time. you fucking easterners are some scared fucking rabbits.



it is not like they have rabbits and deer and wild bore and turkey to kill in new york city ya know?

Outside of cops for the most part, Guns are used to MURDER human beings in our eastern cities.....so yes, MOST law abiding easterners know only THIS about guns and those who use them.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Fatality said:
> ...


Honest answer. 

Well, we've done threads *elsewhere* where liberals overwhelmingly supported the 2nd. Some agreed with registration (I don't) and such, but it was clear the "liberals hate guns" was a unfair and incorrect generalization. Hell, my views on the 2nd were deemed too extreme by some of the _cons_. 

Now, in real life, I know lots of liberals. None support banning guns. Not one. Not even my way-the-hell-to-the-left daughter; she doesn't want to own one for herself, but she agrees with others' right to own firearms. 

Are there liberals who want to ban all guns? Sure. Are there liberals who want to ban _certain_ guns or place restrictions on ownership? Yes. Hell, there's probably some conservatives who feel that way too. You can't paint any group as agreeing on every issue. 

But in _my_ experience, they are in the minority. A very vocal minority at times, but a minority nonetheless.


----------



## mal (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



If only it were that Simple...

But before we Discuss the Specifics of what Elected DemocRATS have Proposed over the Years, let's Speak to your Claim that ANY Conservative would Find you Views on Guns "too Extreme"...

What "Extreme Views" and who Specifically?



peace...


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



FAM in particular (and there were others I can't recall at the moment) jumped all over me for saying I believed that once a person convicted served their time _and_ whatever parole/probation is ordered, they should have their full rights restored to include ownership of firearms. 

I don't believe in registration. I don't believe in licenses for concealed carry or for any other reason. No regulations as to how it should be stored or transported. What I do with my property and how I choose to transport or carry it is my business. Background checks _only_ by dealers and _only_ to check for _current_ criminals (meaning those who are currently on probation or parole, etc., _not_ those with a criminal _history_, _if_ they've paid their debt to society in full). Private sales or gifts between individuals, none of the government's business. There's more, but I've been up since Monday morning (minus 10 non-consecutive hours of sleep), so I can't think of more off the top of my head.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 21, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



What the fuck does a rape of a child have to do with anything?? You 're beginning to sound a lot like chrissy.

People do stupid things all the fucking time but one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Damn you people are stupid!!


----------



## mal (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



I have no Disagreement you on that and I am Surprised that FAM did...

Aside from his Cop Side...

Cops see Society Differently than you and I.



peace...


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



Oh, I'm sure his experiences as a NYC cop have colored his views on this. But IMO, the people he's worried about wouldn't care one way or the other. They're going to do what they're going to do. 

Now that said. I still think what happened at that rally was stupid. And I already showed them to be completely nuts.


----------



## Gudrid (Aug 21, 2009)

I go back and forth on registration, but I'm all for doing away with permit requirements for concealed carry.  Frankly, I'd love to see very few restrictions on the consumer, and safety requirements added to the manufacturing side.  Password trigger lock technology is no longer unreasonably expensive.  If we can put it on a pink "my first diary" toy, we can surely put it on a gun.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

Gudrid said:


> I go back and forth on registration, but I'm all for doing away with permit requirements for concealed carry.  Frankly, I'd love to see very few restrictions on the consumer, and safety requirements added to the manufacturing side.  Password trigger lock technology is no longer unreasonably expensive.  If we can put it on a pink "my first diary" toy, we can surely put it on a gun.



I have no problems with manufacturing adding all the safety technology they can.


----------



## mal (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> Oh, I'm sure his experiences as a NYC cop have colored his views on this. But IMO, the people he's worried about wouldn't care one way or the other. They're going to do what they're going to do.
> 
> Now that said. I still think what happened at that rally was stupid. And I already showed them to be completely nuts.



Some Convicts should NEVER be Allowed to have Guns... It Depends on the Crime.



peace...


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I'm sure his experiences as a NYC cop have colored his views on this. But IMO, the people he's worried about wouldn't care one way or the other. They're going to do what they're going to do.
> ...


Nope. 

If they are that dangerous that they cannot be trusted to have their full rights of citizenship restored AFTER they've paid their debt, then they have no business being out of jail or off probation. 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Once they've paid their debt, there is no reason to continue to withhold their rights from them. Because in effect, you're extending their sentence without due process. 

If you wish to have them on probation for life, so be it. But otherwise, give 'em back their vote (if taken) and their right to own firearms.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 21, 2009)

One can petition the Secretary of the Treasury to have their right to own weapons returned. The reality is of course it won't happen, but that is the law.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



So you disagree with the horrible way we treat sex offenders? In California they can't even live in some cities because of the restrictions. These people are either no longer dangerous or they are. If they are the law needs to be changed so we don't let them out of jail. IF you let them out, then they should have no such restrictions enforced against them that prevents them from even living in a city. That is cruel and Unusual Punishment in my opinion. As well as punishment that ignores the protection against such with out the action of a trial.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



I was looking at the VA sex offender registry. You'd be surprised how many (it seemed like most I looked at; perhaps not) were people who, if you do the math back to their conviction, were say an eighteen, nineteen year old kid who had "carnal knowledge" of a 15-16 year old. Ya know, that's dating someone within their high-school years. A senior getting a bit frisky with one of the freshmen or sophomores? Bammo. Registered sex offender. Or those who were caught "exposing themselves" after getting drunk and pissing against a building. And there they are...listed right alongside scum who raped little kids. 

That is majorly fucked up.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

And something else I noticed. Because of the restrictions placed upon them, they all live pretty much in a concentrated area, within close proximity of each other, oftentimes in the same apartment complexes. 

Remember that little girl who was kidnapped from her trailer in Florida? They showed a map of her immediate area. How many registered sex offenders lived nearby in the same neighborhood? 

Not only is putting certain people on the registries just plain stupid IMO, but it muddies the waters when something like that DOES happen. So instead of 2 potential suspects, you have 10.


----------



## EMGhb (Aug 21, 2009)

I'm still not sure what to think about this.  I think I saw the news coverage of the first incident of this type, where a guy showed up with a pistol strapped to his thigh.  You should be able to carry a firearm to protect yourself, and if you misuse it then you face the consequences.  I don't know about wearing it strapped to the outside of your leg at a rally though.  I think that just makes people nervous for no reason.  I know it was the man's right to wear it holstered like that, but it seems like it was intentionally trying to stir the pot.


----------



## mal (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



The Conviction was the Due Process...

But I am for Easing the Laws regarding Convicts and Guns.

Considering the Justice System and it's Punishments, I don't Beleive that simply beacuse a Judge says 10 Years on a Gun Crime, that the Person who was Convicted should be allowed to have Guns again...

10 Years doesn't mean they are Cured.



peace...


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 21, 2009)

And they brought attention to a very important issue.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 21, 2009)

Lonestar_logic said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Speaking of stupid No Star Logic, what makes you think that people AREN'T going to go to these town halls and NOT start firing?  Their basic kindness towards their fellow man?

Nope.


----------



## mal (Aug 21, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Speaking of stupid No Star Logic, what makes you think that people AREN'T going to go to these town halls and NOT start firing?  Their basic kindness towards their fellow man?
> 
> Nope.



And when this is all Done and the Townhalls are over and there is not Shooting, what will you say?...



peace...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of stupid No Star Logic, what makes you think that people AREN'T going to go to these town halls and NOT start firing?  Their basic kindness towards their fellow man?
> ...



I'm going to take a Limp Idiot stance on this...............Limp Idiot wanted Obama to fail.

I'm hoping that nobody dies from a gun incident, but, with the way that the right has been generating hysteria and hate, I'm gonna bet on the side that eventually, someone is gonna die.

Like I said...........I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.


----------



## mal (Aug 21, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> I'm going to take a Limp Idiot stance on this...............Limp Idiot wanted Obama to fail.
> 
> I'm hoping that nobody dies from a gun incident, but, with the way that the right has been generating hysteria and hate, I'm gonna bet on the side that eventually, someone is gonna die.
> 
> Like I said...........I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.



It's almost like you Libs are Hoping that someone gets Shot...

You are the only one's Bringing it up...

Keep Agitating.



peace...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 21, 2009)

I didn't start the agitation.  The tea party idiots, the birther movement, and FAUX Noise did.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of stupid No Star Logic, what makes you think that people AREN'T going to go to these town halls and NOT start firing?  Their basic kindness towards their fellow man?
> ...



We should take pity on the stinking rotting christian neo con fascist gouls that they did not achieve thier objective.  

We should give em an encouraging "atta boy" and a "better luck next time"!


----------



## mal (Aug 21, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



I Hope your Schtick is at least Theraputic for you...



peace...


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



Is that what you think our countrys troubles are...fodder for someones Schtick?

How enlightened of you.

Is that venom dripping with the saliva from your grinning goulish lips while our country lays dying on the sidewalk?

Oh for a wooden stake and access to the cripts from where you come from.


----------



## Newby (Aug 21, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



That sounds an awful lot like 'fear mongering' if you ask me.


----------



## Newby (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



  I'm guessing not, they're just filled to the head with cynicism.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



First of all, when you're convicted of anything, there's a sentence. Some crimes carry with that a period of probation where there is monitoring after release. Once _that_ is served, the person has served their time, paid their debt, then due process is (_should_) be required for any further action by the State, to include continuing to prohibit the person from exercising their full rights of citizenship. If 10 years isn't enough and they aren't "cured" (of what, btw???), then they have no business being out of jail or off probation. It's not that person's fault if the laws are such that they are released from custody and probation 'too soon'. Refusing to restore their rights _after they've served all legally required punishment_ is akin to convicting and sentencing them without due process for something they _may_ do in the future.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


how about looking at it this way(it's how i do)
when they are convicted, the 2nd amendment right is terminated as a part of their conviction
and they have to ask for it to be restored


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



HELL no. 

That's even _worse_.


----------



## pete (Aug 21, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



why not that ... oh wait I thought you were referring to the shit stain in office!


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


um, thats how it IS now


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Did I indicate that I agree with how it's done 'now'?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


then how would it be "worse" ?


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



As in what I was responding to in my post. And btw, I don't believe that's how it's done in all states.


----------



## BolshevikHunter (Aug 21, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> > The Constitution cites 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble'. Clearly the inclusion of the word 'peaceably' indicates that the people do not have the right to assemble non-peacefully.
> ...



I was wondering the exact same thing bro. ~BH


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


well, i think your way would be worse
especially if they had been convicted of a crime while using a gun
they have already shown they will abuse that right


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You got a speeding ticket last week and were convicted and sentenced. The state should revoke your license permanently because you've been shown you will abuse it.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


did i do it with a gun????


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


What does that have to do with anything? A car can be just as deadly. 

Nah. 

You've proven to the state you will abuse that license. Hand it over.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


lol
yeah, totally not the same thing 


and you know it



btw, convince a state to enact such a law, and you MIGHT have a point
till then your pissin into the wind


----------



## mal (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



It's the Law... They Knew it BEFORE they Committed a Felony...

It's NOT Extra Punishment, it's one of the Punishments for Felons.

And if they didn't Know, Ignorance is NO Excuse.



peace...


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



How is it not the same thing? You claim someone should lose a right without due process because they've shown they will abuse it. 

As far the second part to your post, that's irrelevant.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


they had due process
its known as a trial


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



More people are killed by cars in this country than by guns. His point is valid.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


i disagree, her point is a deflection
because if it was valid, then some state would have enacted just such a law
and since most states remove the right to gun ownership to convicted felons, it is already existing law


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Again. You were speeding and the state properly applied due process to convict and sentence you. Why should you ever again be allowed a license? After all, you've had your due process.


----------



## mal (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



It's part of the Original Due Process of the Conviction...

Part of being Convicted of a Felony is NOT being Able to Own or Possess a Gun.

It's the Law... Ignorance of it Prior to Committing a Felony is not my Problem.



peace...


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


once again, get a state to enact such a law


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You're arguing that a law is Constitutional because it is a law? 

Really???


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...


and they still have the due process to get the right restored


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...


then challenge it if you think it is unconstutional
and stop pissin on yourself


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Amazing. 

A law is Constitutional because it's the law. 

Now I've seen it all


----------



## jillian (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> You're arguing that a law is Constitutional because it is a law?
> 
> Really???



what are the recidivist rates for violent felons? there are exceptions to constitutional protections when needed. for example, the need for a search warrant doesn't exist when you're in hot pursuit or if there are exigent circumstances.

sex offenders are required to register their residence even after the jail terms are finished because of the recidivist rate. wouldn't you say freedom trumps owning a gun?

no one violent should have a gun. and no one who was ever a spouse or child abuser should have a gun. and no one mentally ill should have a gun.

i have no issue with people owning guns. but not people who can't be trusted with them.

i don't think ay constitutional challenge would be very successful.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


until it is challenged and ruled unconstitutional, yes


and stop using that strawman
i never said that because any law could be unconstitutional but it is still the rule of law until challenged and ruled unconstitutional


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



My Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator friend, the Clause you quoted, has to do with civil rights.  In my opinion, you are taking the XIV Amendment out of context. 

In regards to having one's II Amendment rights restored once they have served their time,  ( including probation ) I agree with you Emma. I believe they should have their right restored. If they are a danger that they can't, then they shouldn't be walking the streets, in my opinion. I find it just as hypocritical as you do Emma.  With that being said, the states are free to place restrictions on the II Amendment right.  If an individual state puts a II Amendment restriction on someone convicted of a crime, they are free to do so Emma.  That does not equate to them being denied due process of the law. 

The car analogy you used, is a good attempt. I understand your point. However, driving in and of itself is a privilege.  If we put rights and privileges to the side for a moment and look at your analogy, it is valid. 

In my opinion, the only way you can attempt to argue lack of due process, is if the II Amendment was incorporated, and a state was attempting to place restrictions above that of the fed. If they ugly and bastardized scenario ever came to fruition, you might would have a case Emma.  I pray that the II Amendment never gets incorporated.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 21, 2009)

Lots of violent people never use guns, period.

Felons aren't allowed to own firearms. That's good enough.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

tha malcontent said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



Due process is specific to a specific charge. Just because I've received appropriate due process for a crime doesn't mean that particular instance of due process carries over and covers any further crimes I may commit. The process starts all over again for each and every charge.  


 It includes what the law explicitly states in sentencing guidelines, including parole and probation considerations for the particular crime. If you want to contend that the state should keep the person on probation and monitored  *forever* and thus not have their rights restored, fine. I have no problem with that. 

But if you're saying that a person must be perpetually punished even _after_ they have satisfied what the state had deemed their punishment to be for that particular crime and has allowed them to return into society otherwise unencumbered or monitored, then absolutely not.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...


and as i said, if a state passed such a law for drivers, then it would be a constitutional law
but they haven't

the issue on gun s and felons is they had their due process when they were convicted and this is part of the law and has been for some time
unless you want to allow "ignorance of the law" to be a valid defense
then they know they will lose rights when they commit the crime
this is one that exceeds whatever detention they face and can be restored by due process


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> tha malcontent said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


its PART of the punishment
you keep missing that fact


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> and they still have the due process *to get the right restored*


BTW

Due process is what the STATE must follow in order to _deprive_ a person of life, liberty or property. It's not up to _us_ to apply due process to the state to get a right "restored".


----------



## jillian (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> Due process is what the STATE must follow in order to _deprive_ a person of life, liberty or property. It's not up to _us_ to apply due process to the state to get a right "restored".



well, not really. rights only exist to the extent they are enforced. if you believe a right is being infringed, and you have standing to challenge that infringement, then the remedy is to bring suit.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > and they still have the due process *to get the right restored*
> ...


they HAD due process when the right was revoked
thus its only logical they would need due process to get it restored

the state used due process(the trial and conviction) to remove several rights, and only put a time limit on some of them, and the rest are not limited
like there will still be a record of the conviction and imprisionment
same for the loss of the 2nd amendment rights
the state followed due process


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> My Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator friend, the Clause you quoted, has to do with civil rights.  In my opinion, you are taking the XIV Amendment out of context.


 You know my thoughts on that; if it was intended to only pertain to civil rights, it should have stated so. The 14th assures that all levels of government adhere to due process. 



> In regards to having one's II Amendment rights restored once they have served their time,  ( including probation ) I agree with you Emma. I believe they should have their right restored. If they are a danger that they can't, then they shouldn't be walking the streets, in my opinion. I find it just as hypocritical as you do Emma.  With that being said, the states are free to place restrictions on the II Amendment right.  If an individual state puts a II Amendment restriction on someone convicted of a crime, they are free to do so Emma.  That does not equate to them being denied due process of the law.


I disagree. And I believe I've explained why. You know how I feel about incorporation of the 2nd 



> The car analogy you used, is a good attempt. I understand your point. However, driving in and of itself is a privilege.  If we put rights and privileges to the side for a moment and look at your analogy, it is valid.


I'm surprised no one pointed that out earlier however it's really irrelevant to the post I responded to and to the point I was making. I think it's a good analogy, because the point wasn't about rights vs privileges, but to demonstrate the absurdity of his assertion that simply breaking a law in the past somehow equates to "being shown" one *will* abuse a right (or privilege) in the future. We don't punish people for what we think they will do in the future, not without evidence that they actually _plan_ to commit a future crime. 

But if you wish, we can make an analogy using any of our other protected rights. Prior restraint, for example. 

_&#8221;The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this *consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published*. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity."_ 

Assume for a moment that the cons favorite newspaper, NYT, actually did break the law by publishing sensitive material. They are charged, convicted and receive their sentence. Does this mean the government can forbid them from publishing anything else, ever again? While I know what many would _wish_ the answer to be, it's no. 



> In my opinion, the only way you can attempt to argue lack of due process, is if the II Amendment was incorporated, and a state was attempting to place restrictions above that of the fed. If they ugly and bastardized scenario ever came to fruition, you might would have a case Emma.  I pray that the II Amendment never gets incorporated.


I pray it _does_.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Lots of violent people never use guns, period.
> 
> Felons aren't allowed to own firearms. That's good enough.



As long as they're being monitored on probation, sure. If the State cuts them free, otherwise unencumbered, no.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



Read the last sentence in my post again. Slowly.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

jillian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Due process is what the STATE must follow in order to _deprive_ a person of life, liberty or property. It's not up to _us_ to apply due process to the state to get a right "restored".
> ...



Well, I agree and disagree lol. 

I don't agree that rights only exist if they are enforced. They're inherent. 

If there is infringement, then yes. A remedy for that is to sue.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


My point flew completely over your head.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


no, i didnt miss it
you are missing that it is included as a part of the sentence


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


no, your point flopped at my feet


----------



## jillian (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> Well, I agree and disagree lol.
> 
> I don't agree that rights only exist if they are enforced. They're inherent.
> 
> If there is infringement, then yes. A remedy for that is to sue.



heh... 

i think the concept of inherant rights is interesting as a philosophical construct but not as an actual reality. japanese americans thought they had rights here during WWII. And Jews in Germany thought they had inherant rights at the same time. Both groups turned out to be wrong.

We can at least agree that if someone has an issue with a right not being enforced, they can sue.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



What part of "after they have satisfied what the state had deemed their punishment to be for that particular crime and has allowed them to return into society otherwise unencumbered or monitored" do you not understand?

If you want to argue that the state should continue to monitor them, fine.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

jillian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I agree and disagree lol.
> ...





I see your point; but IMO, just because the State deprives one of their rights doesn't equate to that person not having them in the first place. (did that make sense LOL)


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Where it landed after soaring over your head.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

Well, mal. 




			
				me said:
			
		

> Well, we've done threads *elsewhere* where liberals overwhelmingly supported the 2nd. Some agreed with registration (I don't) and such, but it was clear the "liberals hate guns" was a unfair and incorrect generalization.* Hell, my views on the 2nd were deemed too extreme by some of the cons.*



Told ya so


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


nope, never even got close


----------



## jillian (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> I see your point; but IMO, just because the State deprives one of their rights doesn't equate to that person not having them in the first place. (did that make sense LOL)



lol...it makes sense. i guess i'm just cynical about it because of how minority populations historically have their rights impaired.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> Well, mal.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i dont think they are extreem
even though i disagree


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Well, mal.
> ...



Putting Emma's "due process" argument aside, I don't see her position as extreme. In my opinion, it makes logical sense for one to have their II Amendment rights restored, if the government has seen fit to release from prison.  If a person is still seen as a real threat and or rehabilitated so as to be part of society again, they shouldn't be released in the first place, in my opinion. 

I acknowledge the states have the right to pass laws as they see fit so long as they do not violate the Constitution of the United States. Like Emma, I don't agree with gun control and all that other gun law crap.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 21, 2009)

jillian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I agree and disagree lol.
> ...



Did the cave men have to have tribal decrees to tell them they had a right to protect themselves and their property? 

If the federal government forbade you from using any force whatsoever, to protect yourself and your property, would you acquiesce?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


the situation is that the loss of the 2nd amendment right was lost in the conviction
just because (without that right) they were not seen as still being a danger to society, doesnt mean that WITH that right they wouldnt be


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

jillian said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > I see your point; but IMO, just because the State deprives one of their rights doesn't equate to that person not having them in the first place. (did that make sense LOL)
> ...



True. (not that you're a cynic, btw lol)

How 'bout this? The rights are inherent and do exist independent of the State... but without restrictions placed and enforced on the State, they might not be fully realized. Exercised. Whatever. 


Nevermind LOL. 

God, please bring me some sleep


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Given that position Dive, none of us should have any weapons, as we all have the potential to hurt or kill someone in a wrongful manner with our weapons. 

I understand what Emma is saying. I don't agree with all of her reasoning, but her core point I do. I also realize that there were restrictions even during the days of our founding fathers. And when they had served their time, they got their weapons back.  I would like to see us get back to that. It probably won't happen, given the nanny state love that so many have. But I will keep working to that end just the same.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Well, mal.
> ...



Of course you do. You want to punish people in perpetuity because they _might_ commit another crime.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > BasicGreatGuy said:
> ...


and we would, should we establish that we are not able to be responsible with them
this is not a case of someone never having done anything wrong having that right removed


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


they got that punishment by committing that crime
i didn't tell, force or make them do that, they took on that all on their own

and again, they do have the right to petition to have that right restored
so, it isn't "in perpetuity"


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



For the record, I'm not just in favor of restoring their 2nd amendment rights, but _all_ rights of citizenship. Including the right to vote.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Rut roh. Getting on _damn_ shaky ground there, DC.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



You are a trouble maker Emma.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > BasicGreatGuy said:
> ...


how so?
they know that in releasing them, they wouldnt have the right to own guns, with that right, would you still release them?
i woulndt(of course this is in regard to early release) and the prision times would likely be increased otherwise


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



IMO, that is a _very_ weak argument. We don't punish people for what they _might_ do, unless there is evidence that they actually do have plans to commit a crime (and even then, that's a hard row to hoe).


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Due process is specific to a specific charge. And that charge carries a specific sentencing guidelines (be it fines, jail, probation or all of the above). Once those are _met_, any further deprivation of life, liberty or property should require a further and _separate_ application of due process by the state.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > BasicGreatGuy said:
> ...


actually, we do
after they have already DONE it
we put them in prision so they cant do it again


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > BasicGreatGuy said:
> ...



Oh, I do so love to poke people with a sharp stick


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


incorrect
they lost the right in the first due process
the next thing in the line of due process is for them to request the return of that right


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


and for that, it is determined by the laws of the state
not all states remove voting rights from felons
Maine is one that doesn't
not even during the time of incarceration


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > My Illudium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator friend, the Clause you quoted, has to do with civil rights.  In my opinion, you are taking the XIV Amendment out of context.
> ...



If the II Amendment were to ever be incorporated, you would see further restrictions by the federal government across all the states. Incorporation does not bind the feds Emma. It loosens their chains. 

As to your question about the NYT, no, the government could not order such.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

Dive. Question and please answer honestly. 

Do you agree with the argument by some 2nd amendment supporters that restricting the right to bear arms *only* hurts law-abiding citizens?


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



What? First you argue we should restrict their rights because they MIGHT commit a crime, then you say we do so after they've already "done it"? And as to putting them in prison so that they can't do it again, that doesn't address my point whatsoever.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


because they have already done it, they need to be restricted


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> Dive. Question and please answer honestly.
> 
> Do you agree with the argument by some 2nd amendment supporters that restricting the right to bear arms *only* hurts law-abiding citizens?


to an extent, yes
but felons are not "law abiding"


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > BasicGreatGuy said:
> ...



Ah, but some do (35 of them, I believe). Do you believe their right to vote should be restored after they've paid their debt?


----------



## jillian (Aug 21, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Did the cave men have to have tribal decrees to tell them they had a right to protect themselves and their property?
> 
> If the federal government forbade you from using any force whatsoever, to protect yourself and your property, would you acquiesce?



this country interned second generation americans during WWII....

still think rights are inherant?


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


i'm kinda split on that one
i can see that it should be restored, but when i think about the likelyhood of who they would vote for, it makes me not want it


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Aug 21, 2009)

jillian said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Did the cave men have to have tribal decrees to tell them they had a right to protect themselves and their property?
> ...



Just because a right is inherent, that doesn't mean it can't be abused. As I have said before, there is no such thing as an absolute right without responsibility. 

You didn't answer my question Jillian.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Dive. Question and please answer honestly.
> ...



Technically they are until they commit another crime, but that is irrelevant to the point regardless.

*You realize what you've been arguing all along is the classic fallacy that gun control and restrictions prevent crime.* (eta: or more to the point, prevent criminals from using guns)

Or can you explain to us how not restoring their 2nd amendment rights and telling them "you can't own a gun" is going to prevent someone from committing another crime using a firearm? 

_"Aw! Here I am, going to rob a bank and I can't use a gun! Damn!"_


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


doesnt matter
i agree with them losing that right


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



It doesn't matter?



You've painted yourself into a corner, my friend. 

Either you believe that gun control and restrictions prevent and reduce crime and effectively prevent criminals from using guns, or you don't. 

And somehow, I don't think I've ever seen you take that stance on gun control. It's always been more along the lines of _'if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns'_ kinda thing. 

Can't have it both ways


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


nope
gun control laws dont matter to the criminal
and while you are right that a felon determined to buy a gun and violate his release, wouldnt be stopped by the law, it does give law enforcement one more reason that the next time they deserve a longer sentence


----------



## jillian (Aug 21, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Just because a right is inherent, that doesn't mean it can't be abused. As I have said before, there is no such thing as an absolute right without responsibility.
> 
> You didn't answer my question Jillian.



there has always been a right to defense of self and defense of others and defense of one's property... even the biblical mandate says only "thou shalt not murder" (not thou shalt not kill). That has nothing to do with inherant rights...it has to do with societal mores.

As I said, the concept of inherant rights is an interesting philosophical construct. it doesn't exist in the real world.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


_Precisely._ 



> and while you are right that a felon determined to buy a gun and violate his release, wouldnt be stopped by the law, it does give law enforcement one more reason that the next time they deserve a longer sentence


They don't need gun control as a reason for that; that's already built into sentencing guidelines. And keep in mind---again---I'm talking about people that have paid their debt in full and the state has otherwise fully released them back into society.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


this is NOT gun control


----------



## B94 (Aug 21, 2009)

Emma 

How about this?



> My qualifying misdemeanor conviction happened many years agodoes the federal law apply to me?
> Since the effective date of the federal gun law, September 30, 1996, any person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence may no longer possess a firearm or ammunition. This applies to persons who were convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence at any time, even before the passage of the law in September 1996.



Taken from here -

http://www.co.hanover.va.us/circuitct/concealed_FirearmsPamphlet.pdf


.


----------



## Emma (Aug 21, 2009)

B94 said:


> Emma
> 
> How about this?
> 
> ...



I disagree with that law for the same reasons I explained above. 

And this I find especially troubling (or perhaps I misunderstand):_ This applies to persons who were convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence at any time, even before the passage of the law in September 1996_.

How does that *not* violate Article I, section 9? 


_An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "after the fact") or retroactive law, is *a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed* or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; or it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in at the time it was committed; *or it may change or increase the punishment prescribed for a crime, such as by adding new penalties or extending terms*; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the action for which a defendant is prosecuted. _


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 22, 2009)

Armed American have a chilling effect on Socialists politicians


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 22, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Armed American have a chilling effect on Socialists politicians



This is true, and thus why many are pushing for more gun control. Usually, anything the politicians want to take away from us, is a bad idea.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 22, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...



Just catching up on this thread, but to me it seems that just because someone has been released from prison does not mean that they should automatically have their second amendment or their voting rights or any other rights restored.  For the second amendment rights they should have to be deemed not to be a threat to society.  For instance, a person convicted of a white collar crime, say embezzlement never was a threat to society's safety.  It should not be as difficult for an embezzler to have such rights restored as it would for a person convicted of armed robbery.

Immie


----------



## 007 (Aug 22, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Armed American have a chilling effect on Socialists politicians
> ...



And they've taken enough already. 

I think the point was painfully obvious why these people carried their weapons to that rally.

_"We're here... we're armed... and we're letting you know it. If you don't back off, we just might put these guns to use, as our FOUNDING FATHERS RECOMMENDED we should do."_


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 22, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



I would support them to if they did. I am just tired of the rights being whittled away like we don't matter anymore. Currently the government and it's blind supporters just want us "little" folk to be their fucking slaves.


----------



## Emma (Aug 22, 2009)

Pale Rider said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Great job of making Immanuel's point.


----------



## Emma (Aug 22, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> BasicGreatGuy said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



If they are deemed a threat to society, then they need to remain in prison, or be monitored on parole. 

But I'll ask you the same thing I asked DC...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1445340-post837.html


----------



## jillian (Aug 22, 2009)

Emma said:


> If they are deemed a threat to society, then they need to remain in prison, or be monitored on parole.
> 
> But I'll ask you the same thing I asked DC...
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/1445340-post837.html



there are statutory sentencing guidelines. judges can't sentence someone to more than the statutory... 

divesting a felon of his/her right to own a gun isn't gun control. it's just one of the statutory sequellae of a felony conviction.

i'm still not understanding why this troubles you. But someone whose gun rights have been affected in this manner would be able to bring a case challenging it.

I don't know that such a case has ever been contemplated, not even by the gun organizations...

realistically, though, do you think that any judge is ever going to give a gun back to a felon and then have the felon, taking recidivist rates into account, go out and use it in a crime?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 22, 2009)

Emma said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > BasicGreatGuy said:
> ...



If they are going to going to commit a crime nothing is going to stop them.  If they have decided "screw the law, I'm going to get what I want and no one is going to stop me", then nothing will prevent them from doing it.  However, if they have lost their right to bare arms and then before they have committed another crime, they are caught with a gun, they can be arrested which would stop that particular crime.   However, the chances of that actually happening are slim.

Immie


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 22, 2009)

pete said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > tha malcontent said:
> ...



Oh don't be so shy..you know I refer to you and the traitors you are co - conspirators with.

Why don't you shitbags go and take over another country.  You are not welcome any more.

You will never be part of the solution and we really cannot afford to tolorate your 

subversion any longer.


----------



## elvis (Aug 22, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> pete said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



he's not welcome in your socialist Utopia?


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 22, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > pete said:
> ...



I know you are funny if anything.  A real hoot.   

No matter who the president is ..we still have serious problems to solve.  A subversive cannot be tolorated.  Remember giving Bush all those war powers and all that you are with us or against us during a time of war?  Did you complain then?  Is the war over?  Has Bin Ladin ben killed or captured?  

Beyond the "war"  the Bush crime family has nearly destroyed the economy and turned the government over to the k street robbers and fascists.  

There is too much work to do to babysit shitsacks like bigot peatie.

You are a little smarter...I suspect you will step back and let people do thier jobs.  

One of the key elements to righting our sinking middle class and the entrapanures of small business is relieving them of most of the costs of health care.  The birthers and deathers and the fat fucking paste tubes that show up at Becks beckoning to destroy the discussion shouldn't even be allowed the option to leave.  I say shoot them down where they stand...whever they can be found.  They are clearly traitors.  They are clearly the enemies of our future.


----------



## garyd (Aug 23, 2009)

All of what war powers jackass? The right to be rediculed and disparaged by evey leftist with an axe to grind in America? And they all have axes to grind.

Yeah we've got problems in this country and the blasted democrats with an occasional assist from various Republicans have spent the last 70 odd years creating them and passing them forward to the present and now when there little time bomb has finally blown up in our face here they are insisting that what we need are more damn time bombs and you think the rest of us should sit back and allow you to blow up what's left at some as yet undetermined future date?  Give me a break.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 23, 2009)

garyd said:


> All of what war powers jackass? The right to be rediculed and disparaged by evey leftist with an axe to grind in America? And they all have axes to grind.
> 
> Yeah we've got problems in this country and the blasted democrats with an occasional assist from various Republicans have spent the last 70 odd years creating them and passing them forward to the present and now when there little time bomb has finally blown up in our face here they are insisting that what we need are more damn time bombs and you think the rest of us should sit back and allow you to blow up what's left at some as yet undetermined future date?  Give me a break.



OR... Obama could have done nothing like Bush.  Where the fuck do you think we would be now if ALL the financial institutions failed at once like they nearly did?

Are you fucking totally brain dead or just a run of the mill traitor?  You want america to fail because you don't like a nigga in da house.  That would be your REAL truth wouldn't it?

Lets just get past all the hate and get down to reality.  Do us here at USMB a prop and in as few words as you can explain your grand plan if you were the president and handed a steaming sack of shit like Bush handed off.  Obviously you would have had the entire financial sector fall on its tits...  take us forward of that little inconvenience.


----------



## garyd (Aug 23, 2009)

History isn't your strong suit is it Huggy? Bush did TARP. Spent half of it in his last 3+ months in Office so the notion that Bush did nothing is so ludicrous as to defy logic. In fact our last presidential election was a referendum on Tarp. Your boy won largely because he pretended to dislike it.


----------



## HUGGY (Aug 23, 2009)

garyd said:


> History isn't your strong suit is it Huggy? Bush did TARP. Spent half of it in his last 3+ months in Office so the notion that Bush did nothing is so ludicrous as to defy logic. In fact our last presidential election was a referendum on Tarp. Your boy won largely because he pretended to dislike it.



Bush did TARP in the last fuckin seconds of his failed presidency only because there would have been universal agreement even of all the bushbots that he was by far the worst president in history.

As for "my boy".  Lets see? a senile gold digging wife leaving war prisoner who confessed his war crimes to the commies that lost five aircraft almost sunk an aircraft carrier(ours) and let Karl Rove bitch slap him in 2000 near deaths doorstep with the dumbest neo con fundamentalist christian fascist eskimoess waiting for a skipped heartbeat VS a thoughtfull top of his class at Harvard constitutionalist professor....Hmmmmmmmmm?????


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 23, 2009)

Bush Jr did do something.

He put us in a war we didn't need or want, he raped this country, and, after he got what he figured was his share, he sold the rest to China.

Yeah..........Bush Jr. did do stuff.  He fucked up this country badly.

I'm just hoping Obama is able to make some sense out of the chaos that was left to him.


----------



## Care4all (Aug 23, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Bush Jr did do something.
> 
> He put us in a war we didn't need or want, he raped this country, and, after he got what he figured was his share, he sold the rest to China.
> 
> ...



he was left a mess, probably the biggest financial mess in our history, once history is written...

but, he should not let democrats in congress push him off a cliff with their willy nilliness, he needs to reign them in, or things could get worse than expected.


----------



## DavidS (Aug 28, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...



Lack of oxygen to the brain from all of that scuba diving you've been doing lately. Time to loosen up your air hose.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 28, 2009)

DavidS said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...


david, go fuck yourself
thats the only action you can get anyway


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Watch out DavidS, Sushi Boy Dive Can't gets pissed when you talk about his water fetish.

Careful, or he might tell you that you need professional help (seems to be his go to insult).


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 29, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



We didn't declare war on bin laden. We declared war on terrorists.

And guess what? We haven't had anymore planes fly into NYC since we did.


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> garyd said:
> 
> 
> > History isn't your strong suit is it Huggy? Bush did TARP. Spent half of it in his last 3+ months in Office so the notion that Bush did nothing is so ludicrous as to defy logic. In fact our last presidential election was a referendum on Tarp. Your boy won largely because he pretended to dislike it.
> ...



Well, that pretty much sums this all up nicely.


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



Who was president when it happened in the first place?  I love the ....he kept us safe crap.  He was president when it happened, so by your logic, he didn't keep us safe then, right?

By the way, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 29, 2009)

Yes, he assumed leadership of a country with non-existent security policies. He changed them, we are no longer being wiped out on our own shores, and you guys haven't stopped bitching about it since.

One would think you like it when we're attacked.


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

DavidS said:


> [COLOR="red" said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Davids, thank you, I forgot about this.  He said he was wrong on something I pointed out.  That made time number two he had to admit he was wrong because of me.  

I rule!


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 29, 2009)

The more the Pod People keep fighting against rights and freedoms, like gun ownership, freedom of speech, etc. the more of us that are moving to the center. I hope they keep this up, because then Obama won't win an election again.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > elvis3577 said:
> ...



We did not have any terrorist planes fly into any NYC buildings in any President's admin before Bush the Younger's fiasco.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 29, 2009)

Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.  I gather that fact freaks out the students in their college freshman history courses.  They are asking, "Why are we in Iraq?"  I would suggest they go ask their parents who voted for the freak.


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Yes, he assumed leadership of a country with non-existent security policies. He changed them, we are no longer being wiped out on our own shores, and you guys haven't stopped bitching about it since.
> 
> One would think you like it when we're attacked.



Didnt he ship out the bin ladens that were here when it went down?  I remember reading something about that if memory serves.


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

By the way, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Someone please answer this question, please.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 29, 2009)

Zona said:


> By the way, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Someone please answer this question, please.



Perhaps you should listen to what the conservatives have said about this ...

... a slightly simplified answer that they normally give: It didn't.


----------



## WhiteLion (Aug 29, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> The more the Pod People keep fighting against rights and freedoms, like gun ownership, freedom of speech, etc. the more of us that are moving to the center. I hope they keep this up, because then Obama won't win an election again.


I dont know who's going to win the election next but it wont be B.O. and he knows it!


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 29, 2009)

WhiteLion said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > The more the Pod People keep fighting against rights and freedoms, like gun ownership, freedom of speech, etc. the more of us that are moving to the center. I hope they keep this up, because then Obama won't win an election again.
> ...



What scares me is that once he does actually figure this out, what will he try to push? Worse, what will he succeed in pushing?


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 29, 2009)

He's been pushing since he got there.

I have no problem with people taking legal firearms to the rallies. It reminds him exactly who he's pushing against.


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> He's been pushing since he got there.
> 
> I have no problem with people taking legal firearms to the rallies. It reminds him exactly who he's pushing against.



During the good ol bush years, they arrested people for having on anti bush FREAKING TSHIRTS on.  

I wonder what would have happened if 15 armed black guys should have shown up for a bush speech. 

Considering someone was arrested for wearing a tshirt, answer the question....what would have happened to those armed black guys?

Would you have said, "I have no problem with people taking legal firearms to the rallies." during the bush years?

Honestly.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 29, 2009)

Got a link for that, genius?


----------



## bodecea (Aug 29, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Someone please answer this question, please.
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> He's been pushing since he got there.
> 
> I have no problem with people taking legal firearms to the rallies. It reminds him exactly who he's pushing against.



Always A Babbling Bitch, you are probably one of the stupider people on this board.

Still using circumcision as a way to differentiate humans from animals?

You are a redneck racist bitch who deserves to have her gun go off when she's cleaning it.

Better yet..........put your whole head in front of the gun when you pull the trigger.


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 29, 2009)

And if the 15 armed black guys were Black Panthers, they probably would have been escorted away. As they should have from the voting booths. Because their only purpose was to intimidate voters.

The guys packing at these rallies aren't intimidating anyone. It's just the left has their panties in a wad because they're outnumbered, and they can't pull their usual crap on guys with guns.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> And if the 15 armed black guys were Black Panthers, they probably would have been escorted away. As they should have from the voting booths. Because their only purpose was to intimidate voters.
> 
> The guys packing at these rallies aren't intimidating anyone. It's just the left has their panties in a wad because they're outnumbered, and they can't pull their usual crap on guys with guns.



How the fuck do you say that they weren't there to intimidate you dumb ****?  Did you see the dude with the sign of watering the tree of liberty?  

How fucking stupid are you?  Oh wait..........I still remember in the Religion forum where you stated that you like circumcision as a way to differentiate between humans and animals.

Yeah.............take your bible thumping stupid ass elsewhere.  Maybe they will like you in Iraq.


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> And if the 15 armed black guys were Black Panthers, they probably would have been escorted away. As they should have from the voting booths. Because their only purpose was to intimidate voters.
> 
> The guys packing at these rallies aren't intimidating anyone. It's just the left has their panties in a wad because they're outnumbered, and they can't pull their usual crap on guys with guns.



Dont dodge this..I never said anything bout black panthers.  You immediatly assumed armed black men = black panthers.

Now back to it..15 armed black men at a bush rally.  What would have happened considering they were arresting people for having anti bush t shirts on.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 29, 2009)

They didn't even have weapons, AND their shirts were home made.

How dangerous is a white t-shirt with a circle and a line through it with Bush Jr. underneath?

Do we need to put t-shirts up for legislation so that you can wear them?


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Got a link for that, genius?



He's babbling about one incident, that was nothing to do with the Bush admin but was some of his blind supporters (not any different than the Obama blind supporters) taking it a little too far.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 29, 2009)

Tell ya what KK..........(maybe you should add another "K" to your name)..........tell us all (because inquiring minds wanna know) if Bush Jr. would have allowed loaded weapons at his rally.

Go ahead.........we'll wait.


----------



## WhiteLion (Aug 29, 2009)

I read the article and from what i understand no one was arrested and they were well within their constitutional rights weather or not B.O. was 5 miles or 5 ft away, unless instructed otherwise by the authorities. Hell yall act like a civil war broke out lmao...


----------



## WhiteLion (Aug 29, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> WhiteLion said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


At the current rate the skys the limit with this guy, expect anything between now and 2012..


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Tell ya what KK..........(maybe you should add another "K" to your name)..........tell us all (because inquiring minds wanna know) if Bush Jr. would have allowed loaded weapons at his rally.
> 
> Go ahead.........we'll wait.



Dont know about you, but I am still waiting.


----------



## Missourian (Aug 29, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > And if the 15 armed black guys were Black Panthers, they probably would have been escorted away. As they should have from the voting booths. Because their only purpose was to intimidate voters.
> ...



Is it possible for you to make a point without insulting someone?


----------



## Missourian (Aug 29, 2009)

Zona said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Tell ya what KK..........(maybe you should add another "K" to your name)..........tell us all (because inquiring minds wanna know) if Bush Jr. would have allowed loaded weapons at his rally.
> ...









[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAsysJ72NSU[/ame]​


----------



## elvis (Aug 29, 2009)

ABikerSailor said:


> Tell ya what KK..........(maybe you should add another "K" to your name)..........tell us all (because inquiring minds wanna know) if Bush Jr. would have allowed loaded weapons at his rally.
> 
> Go ahead.........we'll wait.



If you had been charge, you would have encouraged it at Bush's rallies and forbidden it at Obama's.


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 29, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Tell ya what KK..........(maybe you should add another "K" to your name)..........tell us all (because inquiring minds wanna know) if Bush Jr. would have allowed loaded weapons at his rally.
> ...



I'm speculating here, but I'd venture to say the majority clustered around the middle would think toting loaded guns to a Presidential rally while carrying signs calling for blood is distasteful at best no matter who the President is.  
Granted, I think Bush the Younger was an asshole, but he was our asshole and the office he occupied deserved a certain level of respect regardless of the occupant. Same with Obama, the office deserves respect no matter what you think of him personally. 
An oldie but a goodie: Just because one has the right to do something, doesn't mean doing it is right.


----------



## ba1614 (Aug 29, 2009)

One thing is for certain, the blue shirted Union thugs won't pull their bullshit and try to intimidate the fella with the rifle.


----------



## DavidS (Aug 29, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?  Someone please answer this question, please.
> ...



Bush is so stupid, he got the letters Q and N mixed up. He invaded the wrong country!


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 29, 2009)

Zona said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > [COLOR="red" said:
> ...


thanks for showing everyone how much space i take up in that puny little skull of yours

and i dont pay a dime of rent


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 29, 2009)

Zona said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Tell ya what KK..........(maybe you should add another "K" to your name)..........tell us all (because inquiring minds wanna know) if Bush Jr. would have allowed loaded weapons at his rally.
> ...



Both of you ... I don't know, nor do I care, Bush Jr. was a failure in many ways and I never cared what he thought, only what he actually did do. I give Obama the same consideration, Obama is proving to be just as bad, if not worse in some ways. I didn't vote for either. 

Oh wait, I'm repeating myself again, oh well, lucky you I forgot I had mentioned that a hundred times already.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 29, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Tell ya what KK..........(maybe you should add another "K" to your name)..........tell us all (because inquiring minds wanna know) if Bush Jr. would have allowed loaded weapons at his rally.
> ...



Fuck off ya goddamn pedant, go please purists.

I think it's wrong PERIOD to take a loaded gun in the general area of where the leader of this country is.

Remember Lincoln?  How's about JFK?


----------



## goldcatt (Aug 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



Considering the accommodations, I'm not sure that's a bargain.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 29, 2009)

goldcatt said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


LOL
true
but then, its not costing me anything


----------



## Dante (Aug 29, 2009)

BasicGreatGuy said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



what an asshole. the fringes are who are driving the shit that passes for discource latelt.

we need a few more like Ted Kennedy who could show some leadership with a profile in courage.


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



The irony of you saying my brain is puny in the same post as me showing you making and admitting to making two mistakes is priceless.


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Get a room...


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 29, 2009)

Zona said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


while you are exclaiming how rare it is in your sig

the irony is clearly lost on you


----------



## Emma (Aug 29, 2009)

His sig seems to declare how rare it is you admit you're wrong.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 29, 2009)

Emma said:


> His sig seems to declare how rare it is you admit you're wrong.


her
LOL
and you are also missing the irony


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The two times I have ever seen you actually admit you were wrong was due to posts of mine.  I rule.


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Emma said:
> 
> 
> > His sig seems to declare how rare it is you admit you're wrong.
> ...



Do you actually know what the word irony is?  Show me the irony of me saying its rare you admit you are wrong when from my count, its been twice (oh and they were due to my posts.  I posted something you said wrong and you had to admit you were wrong. I love it).

Can you explain specifically how it is ironic somehow?  Please.  Help all of us please.

Now when you try to show it (you wont) please try to not use the word moron for idiot or any other colorful word you use when you are backed into a corner.  

Waiting.

Wating.


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

And still waiting.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 29, 2009)

i love keeping morons in suspense


----------



## elvis (Aug 29, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> i love keeping morons in suspense



this suspense is going to remind Zona of the bachelorette.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 29, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > i love keeping morons in suspense
> ...


never watched that show


----------



## Zona (Aug 29, 2009)

Zona said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Emma said:
> ...





DiveCon said:


> i love keeping *morons *in suspense



I knew you couldn't do it.  I knew it.


----------



## KittenKoder (Aug 29, 2009)

Zona said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Yeah ... like anyone is even going to consider doing what you say for even a second.


----------



## garyd (Aug 30, 2009)

Irony is a leftist proving himself wrong with his own cut and paste and never realizing it....


----------



## AllieBaba (Aug 30, 2009)

Happens all the time.


----------

