Protesters Carrying Rifle Outside Obama Rally

[Tech_Esq]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.

I've detailed why the Philly thing was intimidating, please detail how the AZ thing was intimidating and to whom it was intimidating.

 

[Emma]

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.

And thus it IS intimidating.

 

[Immanuel]

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".

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

Yeah.....not like you.

Tech_Esq will realize what he wrote eventually.

 

[Emma]

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.

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.

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]

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".

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]

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.

And thus it IS intimidating.

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]

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]

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".

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

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".

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.

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.

I will see if I can find it again...if I can remember how I got to the page.

 

[DiveCon]

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?

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]

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".

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

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]

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