Protesters Carrying Rifle Outside Obama Rally

[Emma]

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]

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?

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

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.

Thanks Allie.

No, reallly.

Thanks.

I'd almost forgotten how much of a spaced out wackjob you are.

 

[Emma]

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?

The one was a certified poll watcher. He had every right to be there.

What was "intimidating" was his dress and race.

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?

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]

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

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.

yeah, that's what it is you whiney little fuck. cry me another fucking river, douchebag.

 

[elvis]

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.

do you get down on your knees when Olberführer comes on television?

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

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]

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]

Making it so obvious...dumb assed move. I mean, seriously, being THAT flamboyant...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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

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]

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.

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.

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]

*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.

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?

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?

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]

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]

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?

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?

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.....

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]

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]

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.

Bingo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obviously stupidity not guns kill far rightwingers. Bunch of nutjobs.

 

[Avatar4321]

You guys dont at all see the difference between a protest and the polls?

 

[Tech_Esq]

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.

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]

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

*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.

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]

Obviously stupidity not guns kill far rightwingers. Bunch of nutjobs.

Yeah.....not like you.