Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Durham City Council votes unanimously for marriage equality resolution; NC freepi erupt Previous entry: This was going to be a longer post, but it’s just so damn enervating

I always wanted reporters to ask me about that, but the only other option was to be a porn star

Even at my most cynical, I would have not predicted that people would be brandishing weapons and threatening Obama 9 months out from the inauguration.  I figured it was either at inauguration or years out, depending on how they mustered their courage.  And frankly, the latter seemed more likely, because the second most potent trait of wingnuts (the first being a haunting fear that everyone can see your dark secret that makes you less than a man) is their boots-shaking cowardice.  Remember—-the only reason we have legions of moronic right wing blogs is that there’s no end to cowardly wingnuts who wish for a war to prove their manhood very badly, but want someone else to fight it, because of their unfortunate tendency to piss themselves when confronted with actual danger.  Working up the courage to be such morons as to haul guns to Obama events?  I assumed they’d need years of obsessing to work up the courage.  But these are strange times we live in. 

In my long experience of being a Texan—-and one who grew up in a rural area, though I live in a blue city now—-I can safely say that I’ve never met a gun nut who wasn’t reacting to deep masculine insecurities with a heavy dose of racism to make it worse.  In a way, I’m being unfair, because the statement I made was probably a tautology.  A lot of people like guns and enjoy collecting them, but it’s the anxious masculinity/racism that drives one into gun nuttery.  Take for instance, the difference between my bike-loving, gun-collecting liberal friend and his wingnut coworkers who are also gun collectors.  After the election, they all told him haunting stories about how they had to buy up a bunch of guns before Obama banned them all (using power I don’t think he has).  He, in return, suggested that they’re so batshit it might not be the worst thing in the world to take their guns.  This is the difference, because a real gun nut would no more say “take their guns/take my guns” than say “here’s my cock and balls, please cut them off”.  Understanding that guns will not make up for the deep shame you have that your penis, like other human penises, is mostly soft and vulnerable, is the first step to not being a gun nut. 

I wish I could say I’m overstating this case, but the preening masculinity issues of gun nuts are impossible to ignore when you’re around them.  Take, for instance, my ex-step-father.  I don’t want to denounce the man too much, as he tried to be a parent to us, and was often kind and generous, but his ability to be kind and generous often depended on how threatened he was feeling by female power.  If I said anything that was threateningly intelligent, he would swoop down and try to put me in my place, because any hint that a woman might be smarter than him drove him nuts.  Or a teenage girl, in this case.  He also threw a fit when my mother changed her name back to her maiden name during the divorce proceedings.  He was a straight up gun nut.  Of course, compared to these morons showing up at town halls, he wasn’t over the top, but that’s because they’re competing with men like him for redneck masculinity points.  Gun nuts in genuinely rural Texas can afford to be a little more laid back, because their geographic isolation somehow proves their bona fides, but these suburbanite twits have all that much more to prove, because their shiny suburban existence just makes them feel even more emasculated.

I can hear the wingnuts hiding behind the guy in the video’s race to say I’m full of shit, but we all live in the same culture and get the same messages about masculinity, and that guy couldn’t be more obvious with his glee at being proven to be a man in front of all these journalists, who are characterized by wingnuts as the exemplars of the soft-handed citification they fear inside themselves.  I’ve mostly focused on how the racist themes of the gun nut culture have driven this masculinity panic over Obama, but honestly, it’s more than that.  (Which makes all this that much scarier.)  Obama is everything that the wingnuts scorn as “elitist”, i.e. feminizing.  He’s erudite, fashionable, cool, and urbane.  He speaks in sentences.  He drives a fuel-efficient car, and his family is more interested in gardening than hunting.

The dirty little secret about how the redneckeria feels about urbane men like Obama is this: these men, above all, make them feel emasculated.  I know!  Wingnuts scream so loudly and reject so harshly the markers of urban sophistication they’ve deemed effeminate, but it’s a classic example of protesting too much.  The fact of the matter is cool urbanites like Obama make the redneckeria feel emasculated, because the cool urbanites don’t need to prove shit.  Their sense of masculinity is assured, and they don’t need to retreat behind guns or anti-intellectual posturing to feel like men.  The secret, of course, is to realize that being a man is just matter of being one, and that you don’t need to participate in the endless war to prove that you’re really a man.  The secret is realizing that you still are a man if you’re gay or fashionable or popular with the ladies or drive a VW Bug.  Realizing you don’t have anything to prove in that department makes being cool seem effortless, and effortless cool is exactly the sort of trait that makes rednecks bonkers with jealousy, particularly those suburbanite wannabes.  Of course, they’re too stupid to realize that the lesson in all this is to chill the fuck out, and that no one is going to sneak in and take your manhood away.  So their reaction to Obama is to start brandishing guns, hoping that coating themselves in a layer of hard steel phallic imagery will distract from the fact that they’re soft and vulnerable underneath. 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:43 AM • (360) Comments

Dead-on accurate, Amanda.

I think a lot of these guys IN THEORY would *love* some kind of terrible societal collapse, civil war, etc. They talk about defending house and home with their big guns from Scary Black People™ with such obvious longing that it’s clear to me they want something like that to happen.

However, if the shit actually does go down like that, they’ll be terrified, and the hippie urban gardeners that they scorn will be the people that pull us through, because it’s cooperation and community that gets you through rough times, not waving your penis-substitute around.

Comment #1: Norsecats  on  08/18  at  11:28 AM

I have no doubt that this is all true, and have had similar thoughts while watching them myself.

But my question is:  I wasn’t allowed near bush with a “No Bush” tshirt.  WTF is going on?

Why isn’t the SS doing anything?  First there was one gun nut, next event, 12 showed up strapped.  What are they waiting for?  50 of em?  100?  200?  Or are they waiting for one of them to fire?

Rachel Maddow finally asked an ex-SS agent the question I that has been burning inside of me that NO ONE HAS ASKED.  Why isn’t the SS doing anything, and what can they do?  Does their power supersede state law?

The answer is:  YES.  They can enlarge their permimeter and keep these fuckers out. 

Why aren’t they?  My only guess is that they fear a militia uprising. I think this is a rational concern.  But it’s coming.  It’s coming because they are forcing the issue.  Can’t everyone see that they won’t stop?  They keep escalating?  So, you hammer them now, or you hammer them later at a time of their choosing, but the confrontation is coming.

I say, put them down now. BEFORE a good person whether it be the President himself, or a Congressperson, or a bystander, is murdered.

Put Them Down Now.

Comment #2: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  11:29 AM

“We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote.”

Via TPM

Comment #3: themann1086  on  08/18  at  11:31 AM

Very accurate and well written post, Amanda.  Really, honestly, I think this explains a lot of the tension between Southerners and Texans desperately trying to prove “we’re the real America” and the Northeast liberal elite, who don’t feel they have anything to prove to anyone.  Why else all the resentment of the Northeast liberal elite?  Effortless cool.

Comment #4: Susanne  on  08/18  at  11:32 AM

I actually don’t worry much about the people openly bringing guns.  We all know what they’re up to (basically flashing the whole crowd to show they’ve got a big, hard one) and I guarantee you that each one of them had his own personal Secret Service escort that day. 

Also keep in mind that Arizona is a weird mix of ultra-conservative and ultra-libertarian.  This is a state that loves their guns so much that they thought it was a great idea to let people carry them into bars as long as they totally promise not to drink.  Really.  I think Arizonans are weirder about guns than even Texans, possibly because so many people are aging transplants from the Midwest with cowboy fantasies who really are having trouble keeping it up.

I worry more about the people trying to smuggle guns in than the ones walking around with them.

Comment #5: Mnemosyne  on  08/18  at  11:51 AM

I think a lot of these guys IN THEORY would *love* some kind of terrible societal collapse, civil war, etc. They talk about defending house and home with their big guns from Scary Black People™ with such obvious longing that it’s clear to me they want something like that to happen.

We saw that precise phenomenon happen in several of the whiter neighborhoods of New Orleans almost exactly 4 years ago.

And a few of those penile-impaired racist manly men actually opened fire and shot some of those scary brown people, for no goddamned good reason whatsoever - and they expressed a very sick and twisted euphoria about sitting out on their front porches with shotguns in hand, ready to shoot the first black person who so much as walked in front of their house.

I fear that we’re quickly headed towards some really ugly times, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the urban riots of the 1960s.

Comment #6: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  11:53 AM

So am I the only one who thinks that if 12 “liberals” showed up near a presidential event involving Herr Bush, they’d have been quickly snatched up and hauled to Gitmo and “disappeared”?

You couldn’t get within miles of the Republican National Convention in 2008 if you weren’t able to prove you were a Reichwing koolaid-drinker by showing them the stains around your mouth!

WTF is this? 

I’ve expressed my lack of trust in the Secret Service many times in the past, when it came to protecting Obama.  I was assured by many here that they are professionals who would give their lives to protect their president regardless of his/her political affiliation, and always conduct themselves at the highest level.

Are you still so sure?...

Comment #7: MikeEss  on  08/18  at  11:57 AM

Very accurate and well written post, Amanda.  Really, honestly, I think this explains a lot of the tension between Southerners and Texans desperately trying to prove “we’re the real America” and the Northeast liberal elite, who don’t feel they have anything to prove to anyone.  Why else all the resentment of the Northeast liberal elite?  Effortless cool.

No denying that the bulk of this sickness is coming out of the South, but let’s not forget one fact… the first birthdeathbagger to show up to an Obama event carrying his metal cock did so in the Northeast - New Hampshire, to be specific.

William Kostric, an obvious fan of Timothy McVeigh, was the wingnut we all saw last week on TV with his creepy “Tree of Liberty” sign.

Comment #8: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  11:58 AM

Stylish glasses, stylish tie, stylish rifle. Standing on the side of people holding signs saying “we want health care” and “people, not profits.”

I’m going to wager that he’s in the Nation of Islam or a similar organization, and he’s there to show right-wingers that we will not be bullied.

Comment #9: asdf  on  08/18  at  12:00 PM

Put Them Down Now.

Christ, Caton. How about you stick with “enlarge the Secret Service perimeters” instead of vague eliminationist rhetoric?

Comment #10: asdf  on  08/18  at  12:07 PM

I think a lot of these guys IN THEORY would *love* some kind of terrible societal collapse, civil war, etc. They talk about defending house and home with their big guns from Scary Black People™ with such obvious longing that it’s clear to me they want something like that to happen.

And if something did happen they’d probably hide under the bed like the sniveling cowards that they are.  It isn’t just guns either.  These are the guys with the insanely jacked up pick-ups or ‘boy-racer’ cars with fake hood scoops, etc., etc.  Wanna see something funny?  When a woman outshoots a GunNut ™.  That causes some serious nut shrinkage.

Comment #11: Magis  on  08/18  at  12:10 PM

I think a lot of these guys IN THEORY would *love* some kind of terrible societal collapse, civil war, etc. They talk about defending house and home with their big guns from Scary Black People™ with such obvious longing that it’s clear to me they want something like that to happen.

The NRA actively promotes this mindset for their target Know-Nothing audience. This BoingBoing post describes and links to a graphic novel that the NRA was planning on putting out a few years back, before someone leaked its embarrassingly Der Sturmer-like caricatures of liberals and minorities.

Note especially the graphic on pages 14-15: nerdy white suburban dude sits on his roof, protecting wife and son from shadowy approaching torch-bearing figures by brandishing his shotgun (the stock of which, of course, is seated in his crotch).

The gun-nuts tried (unsuccessfully) to pretend this pamphlet was a hoax after the PDF was leaked.

Comment #12: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  12:17 PM

I can safely say that I’ve never met a gun nut who wasn’t reacting to deep masculine insecurities with a heavy dose of racism to make it worse.

Yes. Now if a national politician would bring this up.

Comment #13: felagund  on  08/18  at  12:22 PM

The dirty little secret about how the redneckeria feels about urbane men like Obama is this: these men, above all, make them feel emasculated.

I wonder whether there is a parallel explanation for why people in certain parts of world really don’t like America based on their perceptions of America.  (Trying hard not to name names.)  If the dominant image of Americans is one of a rich, cool, sophisticated, sexually liberated people, the one might expect the men in rigidly patriarchal societies to chafe with resentment.  Of course that can never be the reason admitted to the public, even domestically.  So the line is that Americans are decadent or immoral or arrogant, all of which may be true but beside the point. 

Maybe the best idea for diplomacy in these regions is not to send a bunch of latter-day Yankee aristocrats flanked by their pseudo-cowboy security details (the ones with the nicest and biggest guns), but instead a busload of the fellows from a PUA seminar to demonstrate that there is no need to resent America out of envy, because we have more than our fair share of insecure, emotionally stunted men.  Kumbaya and hearty man-hugs follow.  World peace is restored.  Workable?

Comment #14: Lance Uppercut  on  08/18  at  12:32 PM

I see the health care debate as more about a subset of society who does not want to be part of “America” as it really exists.

These people see white people as good and moral keepers of “American Culture”, in which gender roles are firmly cemented. These people don’t trust other cultures whose motivations they can’t predict. They have created a cartoon character they call “Duh Librul” who is weak, effeminate, and hates capitalism and competition, so they can hate him, and attribute all that is wrong, but white, to Duh Librul.

They are really in their demographic death throes. And yes, they’ll get violent, just like Timothy McVeigh did. For some reason, National Health Care is the battle, where if they lose, it’s over. America will be forever changed, and henceforth, the battle will no longer be to dismantle Social Security, because they will have to climb the mountain of dismantling a National Health Care system which will be wildly popular before they can even start packing for the Social Security mountain.

Once they lose the health care battle, they will have a brotherhood with blacks, latinos, women, gays, Eastern-Indians, Asians, Africans even more firmly bound than it was through sharing Social Security, an Army, and a postal service.

I suppose, for conservatives, it will be the equivalent of our having to team up with the racists in the neighborhood to petition the alderman to get the common sewer replaced.

And yes, gender issues and insecurity all play a part. I can’t be the only one who has gotten the email from a conservative “friend” that sets out a scenario where a drooling criminal jumps out of an alley at you and your family. What does the liberal do, and what does the gun owner do? The liberal is paralyzed by self-doubt, tied up in a pretzel of philosophical moralizing, while the gun owner kills the criminal.

What I feel is more telling about that indecision (and the conservative gun-nut’s perception of the liberal) is what the conservative feels about open-mindedness. It’s not the effeminate liberal he’s trying to keep from giving the keys to the enemy, it’s the effeminate liberal he’s trying to suppress within himself. The fantasy isn’t about actually killing criminals, it’s about rising up and killing their conscience and fears.

But that was probably all covered in Psychology 101, which I skipped.

Comment #15: I Heart Puppies  on  08/18  at  12:35 PM

I wonder whether there is a parallel explanation for why people in certain parts of world really don’t like America based on their perceptions of America.  (Trying hard not to name names.) If the dominant image of Americans is one of a rich, cool, sophisticated, sexually liberated people, the one might expect the men in rigidly patriarchal societies to chafe with resentment.

Or… because we’ve been violently interfering in their nations’ political processes for the larger part of the last century.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6UOcmbHrDY

Comment #16: asdf  on  08/18  at  12:37 PM

DTG -

We saw that precise phenomenon happen in several of the whiter neighborhoods of New Orleans almost exactly 4 years ago.

Yeah, but the ultimate in gang-bang porn for them was the Rodney King riots, where the Korean grocers defended their stores with AK-47’s, and that, right there, was there reason for the need for tanks and rocket launchers.

Some of these people really see life as one big zombie movie.

Comment #17: I Heart Puppies  on  08/18  at  12:38 PM

And if something did happen they’d probably hide under the bed like the sniveling cowards that they are.

No—they’ll declare open season on black people.

Honestly, this shit is scary. Emasculated men are not just pathetic objects of ridicule, they can lash out in extremely dangerous predictable ways. Just ask their wives.  Imagining them organized, following clearly-defined goals set out by Glenn Beck and his ilk is not something we should just laugh off.

Comment #18: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/18  at  12:46 PM

I see the health care debate as more about a subset of society who does not want to be part of “America” as it really exists.

Why do they hate America? Conservative naïveté and self-contradiction.

Comment #19: asdf  on  08/18  at  12:47 PM

Or… because we’ve been violently interfering in their nations’ political processes for the larger part of the last century.

Fair enough, and alternative explanations (no matter how tongue-in-cheek) do bear a heavy burden.  At the same time, the category of countries whose political processes have been violently interfered could more or less describe the whole world, couldn’t it?

Comment #20: Lance Uppercut  on  08/18  at  12:50 PM

We are going nuts with fear and bewilderment at them bringing guns to townhalls.

Obama is showing himself as fearless.

Which is the best answer ? I don’t know.

They do dream on race riots and we white liberals coming back to their protective arms… From Sadly No:

#

The Wages of Diversity said,

I see its already happening. And the White Liberals actually think the blacks will welcome them when the Great Race Riots start in a year or two! HAHAHAHAH!

... now that the scenery is collapsing around the left-wing, and the racial tension is already rising in this country. I told you this is the end of “diversity”, soon we will be as violent as South Africa, and all because of misguided liberal utopianism that put “diversity” above all else. Soon you’re going to have to choose our side just to be safe.

Isn’t it creepy how they all act like jilted ex boyfriends that are sure “she will come running back to me if I scare her enough ?”

Can we get a restraining order for the entire GOP ?

Comment #21: lostmypassword  on  08/18  at  12:55 PM

Why isn’t the SS doing anything, and what can they do?  Does their power supersede state law?

I suspect that Obama discourages it.  And he does it because non-reaction only helps establish the fact that this is not a “both sides” issue. It’s unfortunate, but our society has decided that self-defense from women, non-white people, and Democrats is just as bad, if not worse, than naked aggression.  So to avoid the fallacious “both sides” crap, you have to employ non-engagement. I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s also the same for women in abusive relationships.  Try to minimize self-defense.  If it’s that or serious injury or death, do what you have to do.  But if you don’t want to go to jail and get hit with a similar or worse charge than your abuser, try to flee and put physical barriers between you and him.  If you slap him to get him off you, you’re both going to jail, and the cops will be eager to put all the blame on you.

Obama, I suspect, understands this dynamic.

Comment #22: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/18  at  12:56 PM

Maybe the best idea for diplomacy in these regions is not to send a bunch of latter-day Yankee aristocrats flanked by their pseudo-cowboy security details (the ones with the nicest and biggest guns), but instead a busload of the fellows from a PUA seminar to demonstrate that there is no need to resent America out of envy, because we have more than our fair share of insecure, emotionally stunted men.  Kumbaya and hearty man-hugs follow.  World peace is restored.  Workable?

Not really, because the sort of resentful and frustrated males you’re talking about are only used as cannon fodder, thuggish enforcers, and street-demo suckers by the men at the top of those rigidly patriarchal tribal societies—men who are wealthy, educated, and have access to all sorts of hedonistic pleasures on the down-low. Those men (including their diplomats) are playing the game for entirely different reasons.

Comment #23: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  12:58 PM

The extent a country declares itself an enemy of the West depends on how well organized the right-wing there is. Most people in Iran don’t hate America. But invade their neighboring country, and they’ll be scared enough to run toward the guy who promises to protect them. I’m talking about the 2005 election, not implying that Ahmadinejad was legitimately reelected.

The minority who are opposed to America on strictly ideological grounds, influenced by folks like Sayyid Qutb, could not wield much influence without the assistance of our military’s provocation.

Comment #24: asdf  on  08/18  at  12:59 PM

I’m going to wager that he’s in the Nation of Islam or a similar organization, and he’s there to show right-wingers that we will not be bullied.

You know, that’s a strong possibility, and if so, he’s really making a mistake.  The fact of the matter is a liberal who shows up with a gun will become the focus of all the attention, because the media is so eager to whip out the “both sides” argument.

Comment #25: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/18  at  01:05 PM

here’s my cock and balls, please cut them off”

I don’t know, you should have seen this website I stumbled across a few months back.

Comment #26: Auguste  on  08/18  at  01:06 PM

I’ve expressed my lack of trust in the Secret Service many times in the past, when it came to protecting Obama.  I was assured by many here that they are professionals who would give their lives to protect their president regardless of his/her political affiliation, and always conduct themselves at the highest level.

Are you still so sure?…

My uncle is retired U.S. Secret Service… served during both Bush I and Clinton Administrations.  He told me that regardless of political ideology, those folks take their jobs EXTREMELY seriously, and they view any negative incident as a huge personal failure.  They don’t fuck around.

Three weeks ago, when President Obama was in St. Louis to throw out the first pitch for the MLB All-Star Game in the middle of Busch Stadium filled with 50,000 mostly affluent, mostly Republican baseball fans, there were Secret Service snipers lining the roof of the stadium, and several on top of a parking garage across the street from the stadium.  It took fans several hours just to get into the stadium, and they weren’t even letting people enter with nail clippers.  Anybody in downtown St. Louis that night could sense the overwhelming security presence, and knew that an attempted hit wouldn’t have gotten anywhere.

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/All-Star-Game/snipers-1.jpg

Those folks are absolutely the best in the world at what they do, and there is no human being on earth who is more protected than the President of the United States.

While on some level I have fears for Obama’s safety, what I fear more is a repeat of Oklahoma City, or an eruption at a townhall event where a Congressman or an innocent citizen gets killed.

I think it’s a bit nuts that these folks with guns are allowed anywhere near the venue where the president is going to be, but that said, they never get within 100 yards of him… he arrives in the most armor-protected limousine ever built (it can withstand the blast of a rocket-propelled grenade), and never gets out of the vehicle in front of large crowds where these gun-toting folks are present.  If one of these loons so much as tried to enter the building once the POTUS has arrived, they would be tackled to the ground by 12 guys with earpieces before they got within 50 feet of the door.

I just don’t believe the U.S. Secret Service would ever intentionally allow a breach of security that puts the safety of the president in jeopardy.  Like I said, these folks consider even the slightest security lapse to be a huge failure on their part, and they take immense pride in their reputation as the most elite personal security force in modern history.

I do worry about violence resulting from these gun-toting whackjobs, but if their intention is really to try to pull off a hit on the POTUS, they would have better luck waiting for the winning Powerball ticket.  It has been 28 years since there has been a catastrophic breach in Secret Service protection, and the technology and budget they have today is light years ahead of what was available in 1981.

On top of all this… the President is ALWAYS wearing a Kevlar vest when he appears before large crowds.  It’s standard operating procedure.

Comment #27: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  01:08 PM

t’s also the same for women in abusive relationships

Ya, my point exactly. Isn’t it uncanny ?!?!?

And lately the GOPpies have been really deserving a restraining order.

Comment #28: lostmypassword  on  08/18  at  01:12 PM

Stylish glasses, stylish tie, stylish rifle. Standing on the side of people holding signs saying “we want health care” and “people, not profits.” 

I’m going to wager that he’s in the Nation of Islam or a similar organization, and he’s there to show right-wingers that we will not be bullied.

Good lord I hope this isn’t some new ironic hipster trend.  Large plastic-frame glasses, mustache and assault rifle.

Comment #29: Lance Uppercut  on  08/18  at  01:22 PM

You know, that’s a strong possibility, and if so, he’s really making a mistake.  The fact of the matter is a liberal who shows up with a gun will become the focus of all the attention, because the media is so eager to whip out the “both sides” argument.

That’s a good point, Amanda. I’m conflicted. Obviously I’d prefer no one bring weapons near elected politicians. Since the right-wingers are going to do it anyway, my first thought was that it’s better for our side to be carrying in preparation for self-defense. And were the corporate media bias not what it is, that would be my last thought on the matter.

Comment #30: asdf  on  08/18  at  01:23 PM

DGT, while all of that information is reassuring, it’s also disheartening to realize what it says about the fragility of American democracy and the forces aligned against it…

it’s awesome that we have the best personal guard ever, but it’s more than a little upsetting that we need it.

Comment #31: kodiak  on  08/18  at  01:27 PM

What DTG said about the Secret Service. I’m not worried about Obama’s safety; I’m more worried that either we’ll have a repeat of the Murrah bombing in Okla. City or a series of smaller-scale events like the UU church shooting. The rhetoric of the extreme right is just ratcheting up and up again, and I will be very surprised if we get through the next 4 or the next 8 years without something terrible happening.

and if it does, of course the Limbaughs, Becks, and Malkins of the world will try to wash the blood off their hands.

Comment #32: Norsecats  on  08/18  at  01:29 PM

Good lord I hope this isn’t some new ironic hipster trend.  Large plastic-frame glasses, mustache and assault rifle.

Remember, CNN aren’t journalists. This isn’t actually an assault rifle, because it isn’t capable of fully automatic fire.

The more you know! Maybe somebody can return the favor and explain what exactly a hipster is.

Comment #33: asdf  on  08/18  at  01:30 PM

If the dominant image of Americans is one of a rich, cool, sophisticated, sexually liberated people

Somehow I don’t think it is.

Comment #34: junk science  on  08/18  at  01:31 PM

I think a lot of these guys IN THEORY would *love* some kind of terrible societal collapse, civil war, etc.

Which is why Jon Stewart’s “Healther Skelter” segment last week or the week before was so perfectly appropriate. These freaks are Manson Family crazy, apocalypse-fantasizing, rapture-ready nutters.

Comment #35: septic tank  on  08/18  at  01:41 PM

Good lord I hope this isn’t some new ironic hipster trend.  Large plastic-frame glasses, mustache and assault rifle.

Remember, CNN aren’t journalists. This isn’t actually an assault rifle, because it isn’t capable of fully automatic fire.

The more you know! Maybe somebody can return the favor and explain what exactly a hipster is.

The term “assault rifle” is colloquially accepted to mean more than just fully-automatic weapons, though…

In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

- It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
- It must be capable of selective fire;
- It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
- Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles despite frequently being considered as such. For example, semi-automatic-only rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles because they do not have detachable box magazines.

The term “assault rifle” is often more loosely used for commercial or political reasons to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s.

The gunman in Phoenix was carrying an AR-15.

Comment #36: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  01:46 PM

Grew up on a west Texas farm, off and on, learned to shoot when I was eight, but, the army pretty well convinced me that any idiot can point a gun and shoot, and I just didn’t want or need them around after three years of that.

There are a lot of conflicting ideologies in most gun nuts.  It’s easy to say guns are compensation (BGSD?), but many guns nuts have a lot more layers of horseshit built up around their egos than just that.  There’s the libertarian horseshit that they’re fulfilling some Constitutional mandate.  There’re the multiple layers of NRA horseshit, such as needing guns for protection, and the Pavlovian response to “they want to take away your guns,” but, what I think is also at work is some weird response to the militarism in society.  They want to be heroes.  They very badly want their fifteen minutes of fame, and they don’t believe there’s any difference between the two (which is part of the reason for the gun nuts’ general tendency to go kill someone they perceive as the enemy—that’s heroic, to them—and then off themselves because that shuts off the process valve at the height of their presumed glory—perp walks sort of take the lustre off the deed).  Many of them also, paradoxically, see themselves as part of a silent, informal militia defending the country against the government and the government’s military. 

It’s quite confused, as I say, but, I think it explains why so many genuine gun nuts don’t have any interest in going into the military, but still think combat is heroic—they really think of themselves as the only real patriots in the country and are itching to prove it.  Of course, these are the fantasies of the followers of right-wing authority figures, which might be why they’re also so susceptible to the propaganda we’ve seen of late—that Obama is the reincarnation of Hitler and Stalin combined, that liberals are commies, etc.—and are pretty much impervious to any logical evidence that right-wing governments are more likely to take the idiots’ guns—and their rights.

Still true, though—no shortage of cranks and kooks and crazies in this country, and a lot of them are armed. Doesn’t matter if they’re citizens, police or soldiers—a nut with a gun is dangerous to himself and others….

Comment #37: montag  on  08/18  at  01:48 PM

Jumpinjim proves himself to be a sexist and a transphobe.

There’s nothing “innately masculine” about owning a gun. Plenty of women own guns. Anyone transitioning genders who liked guns beforehand is not going to change their mind because of hormone therapy.

Comment #38: asdf  on  08/18  at  01:48 PM

What DTG said about the Secret Service. I’m not worried about Obama’s safety; I’m more worried that either we’ll have a repeat of the Murrah bombing in Okla. City or a series of smaller-scale events like the UU church shooting. The rhetoric of the extreme right is just ratcheting up and up again, and I will be very surprised if we get through the next 4 or the next 8 years without something terrible happening.

I am worried about both.  I agree that the murder of a congressperson or innocent bystander is more likely, but I believe that both are becoming a big concern.  And I don’t understand why we are waiting for someone to die before federal law enforcement hammers these fucking guys.

Comment #39: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  01:48 PM

Speaking of conservative traitors to American government, I just read that the spy-outing Novakula kicked the bucket. The cause of death was a malignant brain tumour, although you could probably cut off that last word and still be accurate.

Comment #40: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  01:50 PM

“DGT, while all of that information is reassuring, it’s also disheartening to realize what it says about the fragility of American democracy and the forces aligned against it…”

I don’t think it’s that so much as the fact that whenever you have name recognition, you have crazy people focusing on them.  It’s one of the bigger problems when national news or high-traffic sites turn a spotlight on private citizens; a certain, small percentage of that audience is practically guaranteed to be comprised of complete lunatics, and a private citizen can’t afford the sort of insulation from that contingent that someone who’s got name recognition from a high-profile job or a high ranking within their profession generally can.  When you get to the level of POTUS, you’ve likely got at least 200 Hinckleys out there for every politically- or ideologically-motivated would-be assassin.

Comment #41: preying mantis  on  08/18  at  01:53 PM

DTG in STL, “colloquially accepted” is a misleading way of putting it. It’s a misunderstanding that is not shared by people proficient with guns. Likewise it’s colloquially accepted among conservatives that liberals are anti-American, but this is a misunderstanding of liberal patriotism.

Comment #42: asdf  on  08/18  at  01:53 PM

DGT, while all of that information is reassuring, it’s also disheartening to realize what it says about the fragility of American democracy and the forces aligned against it…

Not necessarily. It doesn’t take serious forces; just one violent guy and one weapon. Remember, we lost one President to a guy who was pissed off that he didn’t get an appointment as a local postmaster.

Comment #43: Llelldorin  on  08/18  at  01:54 PM

The two boys in this video have the solution to the innate masculine urge towards possessing weapons. Forget Obama’s red or blue pill, take the pink one for humanity’s sake. Not likely guns will be in the future of these two.

Oh, I get it! Faggy girly-boys think guns are yucky. Haw-haw-haw!

Y’know, jumpinjim, I’d be more apt to question the masculinity of a guy who feels compelled to wave around a metal penis substitute for all to see. I’m betting you’d be one of those insecure morons.

Comment #44: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  01:56 PM

As a happily gun-owning liberal, I have to admit that some of my most entertaining political conversations took place in a gun shop, where we “discussed” (i.e. I was informed) how liberals were afraid of guns, needed big strong Republicans to look after them… Then we went back to the target range, and I had a spectacular grouping that day. 

Funny, but the whole “You’ll need us to take care of you when it all comes down” shit never came up in conversation again. 

I see nothing wrong with gun ownership.  I also see nothing wrong with requiring registration and triggerlocks, if you can’t afford a gun safe (and those things don’t come cheap).

Comment #45: GeekGirlsRule  on  08/18  at  01:56 PM

and if it does, of course the Limbaughs, Becks, and Malkins of the world will try to wash the blood off their hands.

Nah, that implies that they would feel some kind of stirrings of conscience.  They would just continue to leave huge, bloody handprints everywhere they go while denying that those handprints even exist or claiming that they’re fakes that were manufactured by Eeevil Libruls.  Nothing is ever their fault.  Ever.

Hmm.  Anyone else notice that both Beck and Limbaugh are admitted former drug addicts (with both of their “recoveries” in more than a little doubt)?  Makes one wonder if Malkin is keeping a bottle of vodka under her minivan seat.  It would explain that bizarre trip to Baltimore to peer into Graeme Frost’s windows to see if his parents’ kitchen counters were too nice for them to be getting S-CHIP money.

Comment #46: Mnemosyne  on  08/18  at  01:57 PM

No—they’ll declare open season on black people.

MP, that Nation article is precisely what I had in mind when I referenced the horrors that happened in NOLA in the immediate aftermath of Katrina 4 year ago.

It wasn’t about protecting shit… it was about finding any damn excuse they could to live out their vile Turner Diaries race war fantasy, even if only on a relatively small scale.

Comment #47: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  01:59 PM

I’ve always found gun control to be more of an urban/rural split than a liberal/conservative one. That’s how you can have Giuliani and Petie King be pro-gun control while Vermont, the bluest of the bluest states in the Union, has literally zero gun laws.

Comment #48: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  02:03 PM

DTG—yeah, I know. :( I just wanted to provide a link so that anyone who didn’t know about what happened at Algier’s Point can be educated.

Comment #49: Mighty Ponygirl  on  08/18  at  02:06 PM

Not to mention one of the Senators from Vermont, the capital-S Socialist Bernie Sanders, is against the assault weapons ban.

It is very urban/rural, its just that more rural areas usually are more conservative (but not always).

Comment #50: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  02:07 PM

I see nothing wrong with gun ownership.  I also see nothing wrong with requiring registration and triggerlocks, if you can’t afford a gun safe (and those things don’t come cheap).

A gun safe does not come cheap, but a trigger lock is not going to prevent a gun from being stolen and sold for the purposes of violent crime.

Gun safes should be required, and poor people who want guns should receive government assistance to pay for a safe.

Comment #51: asdf  on  08/18  at  02:07 PM

I just saw this now:  My “vaguely eliminationist language”  LOL

Yeah, okay.

Look this is why liberals lose, and will always lose.  It’s the age-old argument, who wins the caveman or the rocket scientist? Well the caveman does because he clubs you in the fucking head when you’re not looking.

all over this country for 8 years you coudln’t wear a tshirt to a political event and it was NO PROBLEM.  Now, we have armed lunatics at our Presidential appearances, and it’s okay. 

But it’s not. 

Do something now, or do it after someone is dead. 

But someone is going to die.  I’d rather it was one of them.  But that’s me.

Comment #52: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  02:25 PM

I don’t understand why we are waiting for someone to die before federal law enforcement hammers these fucking guys.

Aside from expanding the president’s security perimeter, there is absolutely nothing they can do.

Fucked up as it may be… no laws were broken by the whackos in Phoenix.

You can’t just “hammer” people for being rightwing assholes who like to flash their metal cocks in public.  The Secret Service could widen the perimeter to keep these folks further away from wherever the POTUS is going to be, but they can’t just arbitrarily start arresting people who are doing things which are completely legal in the respective states in which they are doing them.

The only thing that can be done is to get the laws changed to restrict open carry in public places… good luck with that in Arizona or New Hampshire, two of the most gun-happy states in the country.

We have laws, and this isn’t a police state (at least in theory).  I would like to think that unlike those on the opposite side, progressives should adhere to a philosophy which doesn’t condone the use of extrajudicial practices by law enforcement figures.

If we arbitrarily start rounding up folks like the gun-nuts in Phoenix… then we will have become exactly what Glenn Beck told his followers we would become.

Comment #53: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  02:26 PM

asdf:

Gun safes should be required, and poor people who want guns should receive government assistance to pay for a safe.

Oh, you naughty socialist, you.

Comment #54: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  08/18  at  02:30 PM

If we arbitrarily start rounding up folks like the gun-nuts in Phoenix… then we will have become exactly what Glenn Beck told his followers we would become.

Moreover, we become what GWB and his thugs were for the last 8 years. Just because they were PHENOMENAL shitheads does not mean it’s a good idea for us to become PRETTY BIG shitheads. Bitch that your countrymen thought silencing liberals was OK. Do not bitch that liberals don’t do their own silencing once they have teh powerz.

Comment #55: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  02:30 PM

I think a lot of these guys IN THEORY would *love* some kind of terrible societal collapse, civil war, etc.

It’s a fantasy in which their particular skills give them an edge, [1] or are otherwise prized [2]—unlike the current reality, where their jobs suck (if they even have one) their options are limited and everyone (deservedly) treats them like chumps.

[1] As would the shed full of emergency rations and all their other survivalist stuff.
[2] And not just by them—in a societal collapse, a high-tech rifle would be, like, a total friggin’ babe magnet!!

Comment #56: Molly, NYC  on  08/18  at  02:37 PM

I just saw this now:  My “vaguely eliminationist language” LOL

Yeah, okay.

Look this is why liberals lose, and will always lose.  It’s the age-old argument, who wins the caveman or the rocket scientist? Well the caveman does because he clubs you in the fucking head when you’re not looking.

all over this country for 8 years you coudln’t wear a tshirt to a political event and it was NO PROBLEM.  Now, we have armed lunatics at our Presidential appearances, and it’s okay. 

But it’s not. 

Do something now, or do it after someone is dead. 

But someone is going to die.  I’d rather it was one of them.  But that’s me.

The problem with that thinking is that once you cross that line, you have become “them”.

The reason we are better than “them” is because we have the moral high ground… once we hit the point that we say “fuck it, it’s on” and take up arms and have a big old shoot-em out between ourselves and the Red Team, we BECOME the Red Team, because we are behaving exactly as they want us to.

I get vengeful thinking towards conservatives.  I get wanting really bad shit to happen to them when I hear about bad shit happening to someone on our side.  The day Dr. Tiller was murdered, I found myself thinking, “God, I hope somebody blows Randall Terry’s fucking brains out on live television.”  I’ve found myself secretly wishing for Rush Limbaugh’s death.  I saw the video of a racist pig in my state abuse an African-American woman at Senator McCaskill’s townhall, and I was so infuriated that I posted his home phone number here and indirectly encouraged people to call him and harass him mercilessly (which I later requested be retracted, because it was wrong for me to do that).

I understand your feelings here… I really do.  And I can’t fault you or any other progressive for getting so angry at the other side that you just want to literally strangle them sometimes.

But we cannot do that.  That isn’t who we are.  Martin Luther King, Jr. may have been gunned down for spreading his message of nonviolent uprising for Civil Rights, but the spirit of what he was doing has been vindicated by history.  King is a national hero, and James Earl Ray, his assassin, is a reviled racist.

We don’t win by becoming them.  And when we become them, we give them PRECISELY what they want.

Comment #57: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  02:45 PM

Outstanding commentary, Amanda.  Seriously.

I think a lot of these guys IN THEORY would *love* some kind of terrible societal collapse, civil war, etc.

Wolverines!!1!!!

Comment #58: Weezie Jefferson  on  08/18  at  02:45 PM

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this, but in one of the screenshots of the guy’s youtube video linked to at TPM, there can clearly be seen in the background a “Vaccines are Poison” poster.  So now we can count the teabaggers to be 1.Birthers 2.Death Panelers 3.Anti Vaccinators

It’s like a trifecta of insanity.

Comment #59: Zed  on  08/18  at  02:45 PM

Sorry, I strongly disagree.  That we are even allowing them to push us into debating whether it is okay to come armed with a fucking semi-automatic at a presidential event, is mind-boggling.  But that’s what liberals do.  And that’s why they get their ass kicked every fucking time.  It really amazes me. 

It is not okay.  Period.  And the SS need only step in and expand the permiter to 10 miles, 20 miles, or an even larger scope, and that ends this now.  No one said to lock them up, and I don’t appreciate the nonsense of pretending that I did.

Someone will die.  I think Rachel maddow said it best last night when she said “this is okay, really?  really?”  And you guys are falling right into it.  Good job.  And it’s okay for you to do that, but stop this silly act that someone like me who doesn’t want to let someone die, and who like Maddow says, I don’t care what the state law is, this is NOT OKAY, PERIOD, is the bad guy.

Here is an excellent point from a tpm reader:
It’s a truism that people in the west are accustomed to seeing firearms carried around. Having spent all of my life in the west and the majority in rural Arizona, I can say that yes, it’s a common site to see trucks and ATVs with gun racks. However, the fact that most of the people I knew growing up owned and used hunting rifles is a very different thing to walking around the downtown area of a major city carrying a sidearm or an assault rifle. An AR-15 is a symbol, for gun advocates as well as opponents. I remember during the 2006 election there were people in Tucson hanging out at polling places in hispanic communities carrying visible sidearms and asking voters about their immigration status. Make no mistake, this isn’t about “gun culture” or being comfortable with firearms. This is about intimidation - visibly carrying a firearm - especially one designed specifically for killing human beings is a not-at-all veiled threat, and is meant to silence opposition. Yes, Arizona’s outdated laws technically allow them to do it, but laws on the books also prohibit unmarried couples from cohabiting and define a group of women living together as a brothel.

Comment #60: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  02:47 PM

Now Dan, how did you know I was naughty?

Comment #61: asdf  on  08/18  at  02:49 PM

DTG I understand what you are saying, the problem is you don’t understand what I’m saying.

It’s time to stop pretending that there is any debate over whether this is okay.  It’s not okay, and the SS can put a stop to it, we know that now, so they need to act and do so.

This does not include shooting them, beating them, or even imprisoning them.  It means drastically expand the permiter and do not allow guns, that’s it.

No reasonable person believes this is okay.

Comment #62: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  02:53 PM

Dan Grand Emperorer…. at 55:
“Oh, you naughty socialist, you.”

I’d like to see the winger congressmen when they’re forced to vote against that.

Comment #63: witless chum  on  08/18  at  02:53 PM

10 miles, Caton? How, magic?

a fucking semi-automatic

I’m not sure you can buy functional muzzle loaders anymore.

Comment #64: asdf  on  08/18  at  02:56 PM

asdf, let me make something absolutely clear.  I dn’t know what a functional muzzle loader is and I don’t gvie a flying fuck what it is, okay?  And don’t come back and explain it to me beause you were waiting for that opening and wanted to be able to do it.  I’m sane.  I don’t care.  I don’t fuck guns, I don’t care about guns, I don’t love guns, I don’t fondle guns, I don’t want to hear about gun porn.

Good, now we’re clear.

Yeah, ten miles. 

Or, we can just whine on the internet, and wring our hands, and express our righteous liberal outrage! until someone dies.

Whichever.

Comment #65: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  03:00 PM

Sorry, I strongly disagree.  That we are even allowing them to push us into debating whether it is okay to come armed with a fucking semi-automatic at a presidential event, is mind-boggling.  But that’s what liberals do.  And that’s why they get their ass kicked every fucking time.  It really amazes me.

We aren’t debating whether or not it is OK to bring semi-automatic rifles to a presidential gathering.

It isn’t OK.

But in the state of Arizona, it is legal to openly carry a loaded AR-15 in a public place, and so long as they do not breach the security perimeter established by the Secret Service outside a presidential gathering, they haven’t violated any laws.  And we can’t just “take people out” for being rightwing assholes.

I don’t think it is OK for Sarah Palin to deliver a speech about healthcare reform telling baldfaced lies about proposed legislation.  But I’ll defend her right to be a fucking whacko liar with all of my heart.

Acknowledging that someone’s behavior is legal does not mean that you must think that the behavior is morally acceptable.  But it does mean that you cannot support the use of extrajudicial practices to suppress them from doing something which might be morally repugnant, but perfectly legal.

Comment #66: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  03:04 PM

I don’t think you even know what a semi-automatic is, either. Your reaction to the word is laughably stereotypical.

Ten miles. Again, how? Laws that cannot be enforced are a bad idea.

Comment #67: asdf  on  08/18  at  03:05 PM

I see the assholes got exactly the response they wanted from some on here.

Comment #68: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  03:05 PM

I’m not sure you can buy functional muzzle loaders anymore.

Absolutely!  More fun than anything.  I think if these guys wanna play Minuteman they should only be allowed to use flintlocks.  Knee breeches and tricorn hats too.  Makes ‘em easier to spot.

Comment #69: Magis  on  08/18  at  03:12 PM

In that case, they can have their precious little Tea Parties. I’m going to start a Whiskey Rebellion.

Comment #70: asdf  on  08/18  at  03:18 PM

Caton:

DTG I understand what you are saying, the problem is you don’t understand what I’m saying.

Um. As far as I can tell, there’s only one person here who doesn’t understand what you’re saying.

Comment #71: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  08/18  at  03:18 PM

A ten mile radius.  Think about this for a second.

I’m no math whiz, but I remember a little bit from my earlier schooling…

The area of a circle is Pi times the radius squared.

3.1415 x 10 x 10 = 314 square miles, completely gun free.

Do you have any idea of just how big of an area 314 square miles is?

To give you some perspective… ALL of Manhattan is 23 square miles.

Now imagine the White House advance team telling the Secret Service… “We need you to clear an area 13 times the size of Manhattan of all firearms, and we’ll need you to do it in the next 24 hours, because the President will be coming into town.”

After falling out of his chair laughing his ass off, the first words out of the Director’s mouth will be “So when do we deputize the entire U.S. military to act as Secret Service agents so we can clear the area of all guns?  And has Congress approved the extra $100 Billion of emergency funding we’ll need to accomplish this goal?”

It is LITERALLY impossible to create a ten mile totally gun-free radius around the President of the United States when he is travelling to a major U.S. city.  By the time they got finished sweeping just the first city, Obama will have long since finished his entire presidency.

Comment #72: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  03:21 PM

DTG, we’re not better than them because we have the moral high ground. We have the moral high ground because we’re better than them.

And we’re better than them not because we’re more moral (that’s their schtick, for a perverted value of “moral”), but because we’re smarter than them.

Because you can say this for the Conservative approach to policy: it don’t fucking work.

One of the reasons these people are so angry is because even after 8 years of one of the most extreme right wing administrations ever, an administration they supported and believed in, their lives are slipping away from them. We’re always talking about how Conservatives get people to vote against their own self-interest. Well, the reason there’s a conflict of interest in the first place is that the right wing ideology doesn’t deliver any returns to anyone outside of a small - besieged, paranoid - group of white men, who have to resort to more and more extreme acts of oppression and mendacity to protect their privilege.

And this isn’t just true of the US, either. It’s a universal fact about extreme right wing ideologies. I’m from Israel, and I’ve seen the progressive extremisation of the conflict in the last 20 years first hand. The result? The Israelis, for all their settlements, live in more and more fear and suffer more and more violent bursts of violence. The Palestinians, for all of their guns and tactical successes, live in increasing poverty, oppression and suffer more and more violence. Hamas and its ideological twins on the Israeli right (tiny groups of mostly men) are the only winners.

These people - Amanda’s gun nuts, as a convenient shorthand - can deliver the American people nothing but misery. Misery is all their ideology is capable of creating. So don’t stoop to their tactics, not out of some sense of ethical superiority, but because in the long run they simply won’t do you any good, and you’ll be clever enough to see it.

Comment #73: MarinaS  on  08/18  at  03:23 PM

What they’re doing is totally legal. I found it funny that Chris Matthews tried to totally grill the dude with a pistol with the “tree of liberty” as if he was one of the rhetoricians that usually come on his show.

And I doubt the dude’s AR-15 was condition 1 (magazine inserted, round in chamber).

Now the real question is: would you people be whining about a leftist protester who had a rifle or pistol at a Bush speech?

Comment #74: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  08/18  at  03:27 PM

Acknowledging that someone’s behavior is legal does not mean that you must think that the behavior is morally acceptable.  But it does mean that you cannot support the use of extrajudicial practices to suppress them from doing something which might be morally repugnant, but perfectly legal.

Sort of like abortion—you may morally disapprove of abortions, or of specific ones, but your moral disapproval is no reason to make it illegal.

Like it or not, those a-holes carrying guns had a perfect legal right to do so.  As I said, I guarant-damn-tee you that every one of them got to have their own personal police escort for the day.  They look like big men to their friends, but they look like dangerous idiots to the rest of the country, which is not a bad thing at this point.

Comment #75: Mnemosyne  on  08/18  at  03:29 PM

Given that the weight of the evidence suggests this particular guy with the AR-15 is a leftist protester, the answer seems to be yes.

Comment #76: asdf  on  08/18  at  03:30 PM

Given that the weight of the evidence suggests this particular guy with the AR-15 is a leftist protester, the answer seems to be yes.

Really? Link?

Comment #77: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  03:32 PM

As I said, I guarant-damn-tee you that every one of them got to have their own personal police escort for the day.  They look like big men to their friends, but they look like dangerous idiots to the rest of the country, which is not a bad thing at this point.

Yup. They’re overplaying their hand. If they were really violent maniacs instead of just idiots, they wouldn’t have carried openly in front of TV cameras.

Comment #78: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  03:33 PM

“Now the real question is: would you people be whining about a leftist protester who had a rifle or pistol at a Bush speech?”

You’re goddam right we would.  I hated Bush Jr. with a passion.  I hate Disk Cheney even more.  But I would not want either of those “gentlemen” silenced with a gunshot. 

The appropriate place to express yourself about your feelings toward one politician or another is in the voting booth and in Constitutionally-defended free speech. 

The use of metal and explosive propellants is not free speech by any reasonable stretch of the imagination…

Comment #79: MikeEss  on  08/18  at  03:38 PM

Ben, I’ve got nothing more than what I said earlier in this thread.

But how many black conservatives are there in the first place? Of those, how many are conservatives because they’re gun owners, instead of the fact that rich or upper-middle class businessmen? Of those, how many show up and stand with the leftists in the crowd? Of those, how many dress like Farrakhan?

On the other hand, the only thing suggesting he might be a right-winger is that he has a gun. And that’s not nearly as reliable a predictor of political stance as being black.

Comment #80: asdf  on  08/18  at  03:40 PM

I see.  So he must be a con because he’s black.

this is going dowhill fast.  I’d move on if I were you.

Comment #81: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  03:44 PM

he must be a con because he’s black.

A con?

What?

Comment #82: asdf  on  08/18  at  03:46 PM

YOU would. How about other lefties?

These people HAVE a right to show up with weapons.

Comment #83: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  08/18  at  03:47 PM

So am I the only one who thinks that if 12 “liberals” showed up near a presidential event involving Herr Bush, they’d have been quickly snatched up and hauled to Gitmo and “disappeared”?

You couldn’t get within miles of the Republican National Convention in 2008 if you weren’t able to prove you were a Reichwing koolaid-drinker by showing them the stains around your mouth!

Those actions (hassling peace activists, creating “free speech” zones) was entirely the doing of the administration and its lackeys in the FBI.  To my knowledge, the Secret Service took no part in that, as they shouldn’t because it had nothing to do with Bush’s safety and everything to do with shutting down dissent.  It just goes to prove that liberals are better people than conservatives.

Maybe the best idea for diplomacy in these regions is not to send a bunch of latter-day Yankee aristocrats flanked by their pseudo-cowboy security details (the ones with the nicest and biggest guns), but instead a busload of the fellows from a PUA seminar to demonstrate that there is no need to resent America out of envy, because we have more than our fair share of insecure, emotionally stunted men.

That wouldn’t even begin to address the problem.  For one thing, insecure men in those extremely patriarchal societies fear modernity probably more than anything else (and they associate modernity, and the alleged forcing of modernity onto their societies, with the United States).  The Taliban is probably the most extreme example.  They pretty much made anything not associated with medieval living conditions illegal.

Comment #84: keshmeshi  on  08/18  at  03:48 PM

“There are only two things that are better than a gun: a Swiss watch and a woman from anywhere. Ever had a good Swiss watch?”

I’m not sure what that has to do with anything, but it had to be said.

You’re dead right, Amanda. I’ve heard a lot of people (most of whom live in the suburbs or something) talk about how emasculated they feel by their comfortable existences, and they speak longingly about the good old paleolithic days, when men had to kill to survive. It seems as though a lot of them, deep-down inside, know they’re not being threatened by anything, but they want to be. Except not really, because if you’re threatened by something, you might die. It’s better to let other people do the dying, right?

Comment #85: Lenina  on  08/18  at  03:51 PM

Yes, it is unlikely that one of the people openly carrying will shoot at the President.  However, this is escalating.  First there was one of them, and that one carried the sign” it’s time to water the tree of liberty”.  Now, that was a threat, and he was doing it to see if he could get away with it.  He got away with it.  Next thing, we have 12 of them there.  All packing what we have to assume were loaded weapons.  (the AP reported that two of them were semi automatic, and the other 10 were not, that seems to be important to some here.  you can get dead from either).

They are creating a atmosphere of intimidation.  They are attempting to squash dissent.  And they are absolutely threatening violence.

Now, it’s starting to get annoying to me, and this is where I start to see leftists the way those on the right see them.  It’s not the first time this has happened.  I have friends who are walking stereotypes come to life too.  Anyway, it’s starting to get annoying with the bs about the perimeter.  Whether it’s 10 miles, or 5 miles, or 20 miles, it needs to be much larger than it is now.

But there are people here getting off on mocking me for saying that.  Take your math and stick it. Try doing something constructive instead.  What I did was call the white house and demand to know why the SS was allowing this, and stating that I want this stopped.  That I should be free to go to a political demonstration without fearing for my life, and that as a citizen, I shouldn’t have to fear from my President’s life to this extent.

Sometimes liberals spend too much time ass-slappng each other online.

Ohhh, that was soooo clever, you almost fell off your chair laughing, really?

So stupid.

Comment #86: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  03:52 PM

“These people HAVE a right to show up with weapons”

And this right here is what the liberals here have enabled.

No they do not.  Not to a Presidential appearance.  NO they do not.

But I congratulate you pub, you got liberals openly debating this as if it were a rational position.  Tell the truth and shame the devil; you guys get together after a hard day of paid internet postings and laugh your asses off at them dontcha?

Yeah, we’re easy.  Well, most of us are.  Can’t deny it.  You don’t deserve a raise, cause kicking liberal ass is easy work.

Comment #87: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  03:55 PM

“YOU would. How about other lefties?”

I can’t speak for “other lefties”.  But I’ve been around here log enough to be pretty confident that no more than a handful of Pandagonians would disagree with me. 

Moreover, as we’re considered by you folks to be Ultra Liberal Dirty Hippies and FemiNazis, the more moderate people on the left are likely to be even less sympathetic with the idea that it’s okay to carry guns around a presidential event…

Comment #88: MikeEss  on  08/18  at  03:56 PM

Yes, it is unlikely that one of the people openly carrying will shoot at the President.  However, this is escalating.  First there was one of them, and that one carried the sign” it’s time to water the tree of liberty”.  Now, that was a threat, and he was doing it to see if he could get away with it.  He got away with it.  Next thing, we have 12 of them there.  All packing what we have to assume were loaded weapons.  (the AP reported that two of them were semi automatic, and the other 10 were not, that seems to be important to some here.  you can get dead from either).

I couldn’t agree more, and that shit scares me too.

It’s like guns are this thing that, in the USA, we are just supposed to politely ignore. Even when it is obvious that they are intended for terrorism. It makes me sick, frightened and angry.

Comment #89: atheist  on  08/18  at  03:56 PM

“Ten miles. Again, how? Laws that cannot be enforced are a bad idea. “

Okay, maybe that cant’ be done, since you and DTG work for the SS, we’ll assume you’re right.

They can double whatever the permiter is right now to begin with.

But you don’t want them to do anything do you asdf?

Comment #90: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  03:59 PM

From #75

Now the real question is: would you people be whining about a leftist protester who had a rifle or pistol at a Bush speech?

I would. Because it would be an incredibly fucking stupid thing to do.

Comment #91: atheist  on  08/18  at  03:59 PM

“It’s like guns are this thing that, in the USA, we are just supposed to politely ignore. Even when it is obvious that they are intended for terrorism. It makes me sick, frightened and angry. “

Me too.  And even more disgusted that the idea that this is okay is even being entertained by liberals.

Sorry, it just isn’t.  It just isn’t.

Comment #92: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  04:00 PM

“Now the real question is: would you people be whining about a leftist protester who had a rifle or pistol at a Bush speech?”

The response would be the same “asshole, what the hell are you thinking bringing a deadly weapon here?” as the right wing gun nuts should be getting. And that goes both ways: how would your kind respond if these people were Black Panthers instead of militia wackos? Don’t bother answering- we already know the answer from past experience: you falsetto scream like Glenn Beck.

Comment #93: tb  on  08/18  at  04:02 PM

(the AP reported that two of them were semi automatic, and the other 10 were not, that seems to be important to some here.  you can get dead from either).

I guarantee you all 12 were semi-automatic.

But you don’t want them to do anything do you asdf?

I trust that the Secret Service can best decide what they should do. I also trust that they didn’t need you to tell them to think about it.

Now explain yourself, Caton. What exactly did you mean by “a con”?

Comment #94: asdf  on  08/18  at  04:03 PM

From #68

I don’t think you even know what a semi-automatic is, either. Your reaction to the word is laughably stereotypical.

Oh awesome, it’s the old “I didn’t say fully automatic, I said semiautomatic.” routine! That one always gets the big laffs. “I didn’t kill him with a steady stream of bullets, I snuffed him with a discrete burst of ammo.”  HELLOO!? Do you think its the same or something? Silly liberals.

Comment #95: atheist  on  08/18  at  04:04 PM

Me too.  And even more disgusted that the idea that this is okay is even being entertained by liberals.

I’m pretty disgusted that you’re willing to lie about every single liberal in this thread, even after DTG in STL called you out for it back at 02:04 PM, comment #67.

Comment #96: asdf  on  08/18  at  04:05 PM

I guarantee you all 12 were semi-automatic.

The point, asdf, as Caton has explained, is that unless you’re in the middle of freaking trench warfare it makes absolutely no difference.

Comment #97: atheist  on  08/18  at  04:06 PM

a discrete burst of ammo.

That’s exactly what I suspected. A semi-automatic doesn’t fire bursts. Think of a “plain old gun,” the kind a cop carries. One trigger pull, one bullet. Please, know what it is you’re actually scared of.

Comment #98: asdf  on  08/18  at  04:09 PM

The point, asdf, as Caton has explained, is that unless you’re in the middle of freaking trench warfare it makes absolutely no difference.

It makes all the difference in the world. A fully automatic weapon is so dangerous even a cop can’t use it.

Comment #99: asdf  on  08/18  at  04:11 PM

But how many black conservatives are there in the first place? Of those, how many are conservatives because they’re gun owners, instead of the fact that rich or upper-middle class businessmen? Of those, how many show up and stand with the leftists in the crowd? Of those, how many dress like Farrakhan?

Let’s be clear: the Nation of Islam is not what most of us here would call a liberal organsiation—it’s a separatist group with a very conservative social agenda. If they’re for universal health insurance, the term “universal” would be interpreted by them in a more limited way than that of liberal supporters of single-payer or public option.

And the idea of carrying assault weapons, however legal, in the context of a peaceful civil event is very much in line with the NOI’s disdain (somewhat justified, given the historical treatment of African Americans) for the institutions of Western liberal democracy.

And while the presence of conservative gun-nuts legally carrying assault weapons at these kinds of townhall events isn’t the sign of a republic in the greatest of health, imposing draconian and un-enforceable laws (on the one hand) or creating a Weimar-like atmosphere of “Reds vs Browns” (on the other hand) only serve to increase the malaise.

Comment #100: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  04:11 PM

Yes, it is unlikely that one of the people openly carrying will shoot at the President.

Right. Which means they’re nothing more than small-dicked exhibitionists trying to jerk your chain and make everyone forget about health care and start debating gun control. Looks like they succeeded with you.

Comment #101: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  04:12 PM

I went back to comment # 67 and don’t see anyone “calling me out for being a liar” asdf.  and I think you’re a gun fucker asdf.  I think you are trying to claim that we can raise concerns, and wring our hands on the internets, but doing anything other than that is not okay.  It’s wrong! 

I don’t care whether they’re semi or not, and you seem to be snidely trying to hold the line on your elitist idea that if someone doesn’t know much about guns, then they can’t be against guns being allowed at political protests.  This is an insane construct, and I reject it.  Id on’t know anything about guns other than; they kill and they don’t belong at political demonstrations in this country.

As for your rainman like fixation on the word “con"it’s short for CONSERVATIVE, and I was stating that your insistence that a black man with a gun must be a leftist because he is black is problematic and I’d back away from it were I you.

Comment #102: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  04:13 PM

No they haven’t made me forget about health care Ben.  I multitask I guess, because I have again this morning, contacted my congressperson and both senators as well as phoned the white house again!  Though I coudln’t get through to the white house though I tried over and over, so that’s a good sign.
I am also organizing an event at a local townhall meeting, which I have put up on FDL and get new attendees signed up for every day.

see, I do more than wring my hands on the internet, but I will not shut up or be intimidated even by liberals, from stating that THIS IS WRONG.

this cannot be allowed to continue.

Guns cannot be allowed at political demonstrations, and most especially not at Presidential appearances.

And I also called the white house about that yesterday!

Comment #103: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  04:15 PM

Good lord I hope this isn’t some new ironic hipster trend.  Large plastic-frame glasses, mustache and assault rifle.

“This assault rifle plays music to fascists”?

Comment #104: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  04:16 PM

No it doesn’t make any difference asdf the gunfucker.  Guns kill and cannot be permitted at political demonstrations especially at Presidential appearances.

Period.

Comment #105: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  04:17 PM

Gracchus, I wasn’t claiming he’s probably a liberal. I said leftist. And I don’t know that the NoI would be opposed to single payer health care; that seems like a stretch.

As I said, I’m not happy about anybody bringing a gun to these events. But if I was there, I’d ask that guy if he was an Obama supporter. And if he said yes, I’d feel perfectly safe standing next to him.

Comment #106: asdf  on  08/18  at  04:17 PM

Since the right-wingers are going to do it anyway, my first thought was that it’s better for our side to be carrying in preparation for self-defense.

Even on this level, I’m wary of the idea.  The more guns around, the more tense everyone is, and the more likely it is that someone is going to shoot one off.  We need more people like this guy to take the piss out of the situation.

Comment #107: Amanda Marcotte  on  08/18  at  04:18 PM

We need more people like this guy to take the piss out of the situation.

+1. Disarm them (figuratively) by making them look ridiculous.

Comment #108: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  04:20 PM

see, I do more than wring my hands on the internet, but I will not shut up or be intimidated

Who exactly is being intimidated? Did the assholes stop the President from attending? Stop the town hall from being held? No.

Comment #109: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  04:22 PM

They are creating a atmosphere of intimidation.  They are attempting to squash dissent.  And they are absolutely threatening violence.

Yes, they are.  But you know what?  In the state of Arizona, it’s perfectly legal for them to do so.  Kicking them out or arresting them for doing something that’s perfectly legal in their state is asking to make them into martyrs for their insane cause.

They went out to prove that the government is going to oppress them and take their guns away, and what happened?  Nothing.  They went there, they stood around waving their guns, and they went home.  Now they look like idiots for standing there with their dicks in their hands hoping to become big men.

If you don’t like the fact that in Arizona it’s perfectly legal to walk around with a weapon whenever you want, you’d better start petitioning their legislature to change that.  Otherwise, what you’re asking the Secret Service and local police to do is to arrest people for perfectly legal behavior.  That seems like a worse precedent to set than a bunch of middle-aged pants-wetters trying to prove that they’re Real Manly Men by waving their <strike>dicks</strike> guns around in public.

Comment #110: Mnemosyne  on  08/18  at  04:23 PM

Yes, it is unlikely that one of the people openly carrying will shoot at the President.  However, this is escalating.  First there was one of them, and that one carried the sign” it’s time to water the tree of liberty”.  Now, that was a threat, and he was doing it to see if he could get away with it.  He got away with it.

But what was it a threat of, specifically?

Maybe he just thinks that we have too many dying maples, spruces, and elms, and somebody needs to get out there and hose them all down?

/snark

Look… I see that sign, the first place my head goes to is Tim McVeigh, who wore a t-shirt referencing the same Thomas Jefferson quote.  And my interpretation is that this guy probably thinks Tim McVeigh was a super-patriot.  My interpretation tells me that he probably thinks we need another Oklahoma City.

But that’s just it… it’s all just my interpretation.  And while I believe my interpretation is based on fairly sound logic, it isn’t gonna get a conviction in any court of law, and if it did, I would be scared to death that we are headed towards totalitarianism, where we start locking people up because of how we think they “think”.

That sign isn’t a threat, at least not in any legal sense which could result in a conviction for anything.  It is no more of a legally incriminating threat than if someone were to say “We should try Hitler’s ideas out again”.  If we arrested the guy who said “we should try out Hitler’s ideas again”, and I’m his lawyer, I’m gonna walk in the courtroom and tell them that he was referring to Hitler’s advocacy of vegetarianism.  If you tried to convict a person of threatening to recreate the Holocaust based solely on them saying “we should try out Hitler’s ideas again”, you would lose.

Just curious… since you believe that “he got away with it”, what exactly would you have arrested Mr. Kostrick for?  You said that he made a threat, and got away with it… what threat would you arrest him for?  And how could you possibly get any sort of conviction?

Regarding your comment about my observation on the logical ramifications of how much space 314 square miles is to try to sweep of all weapons… I have no problem with expanding the security perimeter around the POTUS.  But it just means that instead of standing one block away with their guns, they’ll stand two blocks away with their guns.  Or five blocks away.  Or twenty blocks.  Bottom line… they aren’t going anywhere, and there’s not really much of a damn thing we can do about it except watch them like a hawk, and make fun of them here on the interwebs.

What we can’t do is just round them all up and lock them away because they’re acting like pricks.  That pesky little Constitution and all.

Comment #111: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  04:24 PM

From #99

Please, know what it is you’re actually scared of.

There I was, scared of a burst of ammo destroying my head and splattering my skull and brains against the wall. When in reality, it was nothing more frightening than a single bullet, entering my chest from the back right side, rupturing my spleen and lung before bursting out of my left ribcage, leaving me bleeding out on the ground, gripping my chest and desperately trying to draw a breath. See, nothing worse than that. It’s silly how fear can make us liberals exaggerate things.

Comment #112: atheist  on  08/18  at  04:24 PM

Caton:

The chance of one of these yahoos getting close to the President is pretty close to zero.  They’re trying to goad Obama into gun control.  Consider you chain to have been successfuly pulled.

I remember when the Black Panthers armed themselves.  Hyoooge brouhaha.  Nothing came of it of course.  Anyone attempting an assassination, regardless of weapon type, will act as stealthily as possible.  They won’t brandish in public and you know damn well they won’t. 

asdf is right.  It is a good thing to know what you’re talking about before, ya know, you talk about it.

Comment #113: Magis  on  08/18  at  04:25 PM

They’re trying to goad Obama into gun control.

Bingo. And divide the Democratic Party in the process.

Comment #114: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  04:25 PM

I went back to comment # 67 and don’t see anyone “calling me out for being a liar” asdf.

I quote: “We aren’t debating whether or not it is OK to bring semi-automatic rifles to a presidential gathering. It isn’t OK. “

and I think you’re a gun fucker asdf.

Well! I think you’re awfully rude.

I think you are trying to claim that we can raise concerns, and wring our hands on the internets, but doing anything other than that is not okay.

I think you are putting words in my mouth. How about you find some quotes to back up your characterization?

I don’t care whether they’re semi or not, and you seem to be snidely trying to hold the line on your elitist idea that if someone doesn’t know much about guns, then they can’t be against guns being allowed at political protests.

No, if you don’t know anything about guns, you probably shouldn’t throw around words like “a fucking semi-automatic” as though the words mean anything to you.

As for your rainman like fixation on the word “con"it’s short for CONSERVATIVE, and I was stating that your insistence that a black man with a gun must be a leftist because he is black is problematic and I’d back away from it were I you.

Problematic? Really? Ninety-five percent of black voters voted for Obama. What’s the percentage of gun owners who voted for McCain? Somebody brought it up in one of the recent threads and it wasn’t anything close to 95%.

So it’s just a good bet that a black guy, gun owner or not, is an Obama supporter, if you don’t have any more information about him. If somebody can clear up the audio on that CNN piece, and he says something insulting about Obama, then I’ll eat my words.

Comment #115: asdf  on  08/18  at  04:25 PM

Fucked up as it may be… no laws were broken by the whackos in Phoenix.

So, use the same laws that allowed Bush to push protesters into “free speech zones” without getting sued.

Comment #116: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  04:26 PM

Caton:

“These people HAVE a right to show up with weapons”

And this right here is what the liberals here have enabled.

No they do not. Not to a Presidential appearance. NO they do not.

Yes, they do. It’s in the fucking Constitution, which we don’t get to ignore for petty political reasons any more than right-wingers do.

And frankly, your assertion that the Secret Service is either too incompetent or too ideologically motivated to care if folks show up armed to presidential appearances is among the most self-evidently stupid things I’ve ever heard in my life. As far as I’m concerned, DTG has given you far more of a response than you actually deserve, because you clearly don’t have the first fucking clue what you’re talking about.

Comment #117: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  08/18  at  04:27 PM

I can’t speak for “other lefties”.  But I’ve been around here log enough to be pretty confident that no more than a handful of Pandagonians would disagree with me.

Even in the fever swamps of the angriest, most outré left blogs I read throughout the Bush presidency, no-one wanted him killed. Consensus view was impeachment and trial by the ICC, from what I recall.

Comment #118: Llelldorin  on  08/18  at  04:29 PM

Gracchus, I wasn’t claiming he’s probably a liberal. I said leftist. And I don’t know that the NoI would be opposed to single payer health care; that seems like a stretch.

Yeah, I’m sure that they’re thrilled at the idea of paying for whitey’s doctor visits. Again, the NOI a separatist organisation, so its priorities don’t line up with typical liberal or even leftist views. For example, they’re not going to agree with the whole Marxist “opiate of the people” sentiment, either.

As I said, I’m not happy about anybody bringing a gun to these events. But if I was there, I’d ask that guy if he was an Obama supporter. And if he said yes, I’d feel perfectly safe standing next to him.

I wouldn’t, not because I’m afraid of firearms in and of themselves (far from it), but because I’m afraid of the kind of civilian yahoo of any political stripe who thinks it’s appropriate to tote an assault rifle around at this kind of peaceful and orderly civil event, even if the law allows it.

Comment #119: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  04:30 PM

>If we arbitrarily start rounding up folks like the gun-nuts in Phoenix…

no you god damn idiot we’re mad because the police are famous for using violence to suppress non-violent left wing protests but sit around politely watching armed right wing protesters threaten violence and disrupt democratic processes

seriously imagine what would happen if i brought a gun to g20

stop your “oh no but uh both sides same truth middle floop bloop” shit this instant

Comment #120: anonlololol  on  08/18  at  04:31 PM

I would have been delighted if Bush had been hung for his war crimes.  I’d've even relented in my general opposition to the death penalty for it. 

But that’s after being tried and convicted, like the criminal he was.

Comment #121: Punditus Maximus  on  08/18  at  04:32 PM

There I was, scared of a burst of ammo destroying my head and splattering my skull and brains against the wall. When in reality, it was nothing more frightening than a single bullet, entering my chest from the back right side, rupturing my spleen and lung before bursting out of my left ribcage, leaving me bleeding out on the ground, gripping my chest and desperately trying to draw a breath. See, nothing worse than that. It’s silly how fear can make us liberals exaggerate things.

If you’re a bystander, this guy with his AR-15 is less dangerous to you than a police officer with a handgun. The long barrel provides greater accuracy.

Like I said three hours ago, I don’t think anybody should be bringing weapons to these events.

But there’s absolutely no reason to start hyperventilating about semi-automatics in particular. It’s silly, and not only does it feed the meme that liberals want to ban all guns, it makes you sound like you want to ban things you don’t even understand. It’s a great way to signal that you’re speaking from fear instead of rationality.

Comment #122: asdf  on  08/18  at  04:34 PM

You’re goddam right we would.  I hated Bush Jr. with a passion.  I hate Disk Cheney even more.  But I would not want either of those “gentlemen” silenced with a gunshot.

Lethal injection on the other hand…

Comment #123: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  04:35 PM

No they do not. Not to a Presidential appearance. NO they do not.

Apparently they do have that legal right, at least in Arizona. That’s not to say that the Secret Service will let them beyond a certain perimeter boundary around the POTUS himself with a loaded weapon (I’m guessing 600m), but the nature of the event has no impact on limiting rights beyond that.

Comment #124: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  04:36 PM

Yes, they do. It’s in the fucking Constitution, which we don’t get to ignore for petty political reasons any more than right-wingers do.

And frankly, your assertion that the Secret Service is either too incompetent or too ideologically motivated to care if folks show up armed to presidential appearances is among the most self-evidently stupid things I’ve ever heard in my life. As far as I’m concerned, DTG has given you far more of a response than you actually deserve, because you clearly don’t have the first fucking clue what you’re talking about.

No, it is NOT in the constitution that citizens are allowed to attend political events and presidential appearances while armed.  This is patently false.  I am surprised to find so many gunfuckers on a liberal site, but you guys are definitely here.  Fine, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Nowhere in the constitution is the “right” to come armed to a political protest/demonstration or a Presidential appearance guaranteed.  If it were in the constitution then you’d have to explain why you cannot do any such thing in many states.  But you cannot explain that because you have lied.

I never said the SS is too ideological or incompetent to take further steps, I said that my guess is they aren’t doing it (probably on directions from Obama himself) because a militia uprising is feared.  My belief is that is coming sooner or later, and we shouldn’t be intimidated out of taking common sense steps for fear of it.

Finally, when I say bring the hammer down, here are two specifics I’d like to see:

1)  Immediately double the SS controlled perimeter at Presidential appearances.
2)  A guy who is armed AND carrying a sign reading “It’s time to water the tree of liberty” should be taken in for questioning.  That’s a threat, and we all know it to be one. 

Continuing to do nothing will only allow them to continue their escalation.

Comment #125: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  04:37 PM

we’re mad because the police are famous for using violence to suppress non-violent left wing protests but sit around politely watching armed right wing protesters threaten violence and disrupt democratic processes

I’d agree that there’s a double standard to say the least, but the local police have a mission (both overt and hidden) distinct from that of the Secret Service.

Comment #126: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  04:39 PM

If you’re a bystander, this guy with his AR-15 is less dangerous to you than a police officer with a handgun. The long barrel provides greater accuracy.

Dude, guns don’t kill people - people kill people.

And, at least at a public event, a armed person who is a cop is less likely to kill you than a small-dicked right-wing pin head who thinks carrying a semi-automatic rifle makes him A Man(tm).

Comment #127: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  04:39 PM

“It is a good thing to know what you’re talking about before, ya know, you talk about it. “

Magis just because your opinion differs from mine, does not mean I do not know what I am talking about. 

Your guesstimate of “pretty close to zero” being the chances of one of these guys getting close enough to obama to get off a shot, is just that; a guess.

And in the meantime, they are escalating the intimidation and the atmosphere of violence ready to be meted out to any dissenter.  Maybe YOU"D like to hold a sign reading “health care reform now’ next to one of them, but I, who actually take time off now and again from talking smack on the internet to attend a demonstration, would not like to.

And that’s part of their strategy too.

Comment #128: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  04:40 PM

“So, use the same laws that allowed Bush to push protesters into “free speech zones” without getting sued.”

Agreed.

Comment #129: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  04:42 PM

Me too.  And even more disgusted that the idea that this is okay is even being entertained by liberals.

Sorry, it just isn’t.  It just isn’t.

Who the fuck said that what these fuckwits are doing is OK?

I sure as fuck didn’t.  I think it’s downright fucked up, sick, and disgusting.

But at the same time, I also recognize that what they were doing was completely legal.

Now, do I think the gun laws we have aren’t restrictive enough?

Damn skippy I do.

Do I think that a larger security perimeter should probably be placed around the president given what we’ve seen this week?

Yup.

But I also recognize the utter impracticality of trying to create a ten-mile (or even five-mile) 100% gun-free security radius around the president when he travels in a major U.S. city.

And I also believe that the way to address these things is through legislative processes… if the laws are allowing people to get too close to the POTUS with weapons, you work to change the laws, you don’t start arresting people who aren’t breaking any laws.

You’re the one who said we should “lay down the hammer” on these folks and that we should “take them out”.

I took a different position, because what you are advocating is for the federal government to commit crimes against its own citizens.

I vehemently disagree with that approach.

I can both hold the position that what these folks are doing ISN’T ok, and at the same time hold the stance that we shouldn’t be circumventing the law in order to deal with these people.

The just solution is to work for stricter gun control laws, and in the short-term, expand the security perimeter around the president a little more.

The unjust solution is to go cowboy and decide that we’re just gonna start arresting or shooting rightwing fucktards on site when they haven’t violated any laws.

Comment #130: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  04:42 PM

He’s erudite, fashionable, cool, and urbane.  He speaks in sentences.  He drives a fuel-efficient car
Barack Obama’s SUV Hypocrisy
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/barack_obamas_suv_hypocrisy/
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2006/08/16/20060816_015110_flash3.htm

Comment #131: Paul L.  on  08/18  at  04:43 PM

Yeah, I’m sure that they’re thrilled at the idea of paying for whitey’s doctor visits.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Health_amp_Fitness_11/Health_care_for_all_in_my_backyard.shtml

“I want everyone in this nation to have access to quality health care. I want everyone to have a public health insurance plan that covers their needs. I want everyone to be able to choose their own doctors or other health care providers. I don’t want race or ethnicity to define who is healthy and who is experiencing health challenges. ... Please call your Congress person today and tell them what you want in your backyard: a) coverage for everyone; b) all-inclusive benefits; c) choice of health care providers; d) no more racial and other disparities; e) waiver of pre-existing condition exclusions without any age limits; f) a public health insurance option for everyone. People’s very lives depend on it.”

For example, they’re not going to agree with the whole Marxist “opiate of the people” sentiment, either.

Well, sure, they aren’t Marxists. But the full quote isn’t an insult of religious people, anyway. It’s a bit of poetic love and understanding.

Comment #132: asdf  on  08/18  at  04:44 PM

#121: Fine, we’re angry too, now what?

Is it really better to shake one’s fist at teh sky and stamp one’s foot and indulge in childlish fantasies along the “and then they’ll all be sorry!!” type than to stop and think, then acknowledge that since the armed protesters were breaking no laws, as democrats and liberals there is nothing we can do other than condemn their attitude and disapprove of their behaviour?

Or do you want to see the police start arresting people for perceived thought crimes? Like I said, that’s what the right wingers do, and not only is it evil, it doesn’t even fucking work.

Comment #133: MarinaS  on  08/18  at  04:45 PM

I never said we should take them out, and I later clarified what I meant by “bring down the hammer”.  You are putting words in my mouth that I never said, and I’d appreciate your stopping that.

I also never advocated “circumventing the law”.  Apparently there are some very limited imaginations around here, and when a person advocates action, everyone gets out their pearls and hankies and starts screaming"No arrests!”.

Still waiting to hear how “it’s in the constitution” that you are allowed to bring weapons to political events and presidential events, and why the SS shouldn’t double their protected perimeter, and what exact steps asdf IS recommending other than telling us which guns were and weren’t there, and what we CANNOT do.

so you know, anytime.

Comment #134: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  04:47 PM

Caton:

While we’re at it, why don’t we dust off the Alien & Sedition Acts.  I’m sure it will work out at least as well for the Democrats as it did the Federalists…oh, wait….

They have the constitutional right to assemble and the right to openly carry firearms.  Is there some part of that you don’t get?

Bye the bye, if we’re gun fuckers, you’re a gun-phobe (hoplophobe).  Tell me, if you will, what threat these nut balls are, other than to your sense of propriety?

It sounds as if you want the SS to BE the SS.

Comment #135: Magis  on  08/18  at  04:49 PM

Continuing to do nothing will only allow them to continue their escalation.

Doing something will only allow them to scream and wail about the oppression inherent in the system, to borrow from Monty Python.  Don’t think they wouldn’t play up the “Obama thugs violating our right to bear arms and peaceably assemble” angle.  Doing nothing leaves the ball in their court.  Put up, or shut up.

No, it is NOT in the constitution that citizens are allowed to attend political events and presidential appearances while armed.

The 2nd amendment (unfortunately) doesn’t say anything about an exception to the right to bear arms at public political gatherings.  In other worlds, it’s also not in the Constitution that citizens are NOT allowed to attend political events and presidential appearances while armed.  And things that are not explicitly spelled out in the constitution are left to the States, or to the People.

No one is disagreeing with you that guns at political events (or anywhere else for that matter) are a bad idea.  It’s simply not illegal.

Comment #136: liberalrob  on  08/18  at  04:50 PM

“Lethal injection on the other hand…”

While I’m not as knee-jerk anti-capital punishment as most around here, I’d disagree with that one too. 

Convict them for violating American laws, then hand them over to the International Criminal Court and let them take it from there.

We need fewer martyrs in the ground and more generally acknowledged embarassments to humanity left alive as examples…

Comment #137: MikeEss  on  08/18  at  04:53 PM

I never said we should take them out

I believe your exact words were, “Put them down now.”  What does “put them down” mean to you?  Because to me, when you “put down” something like that you’re generally talking about “putting down” animals that are wounded or sick.  “Putting down” revolts is also usually rather violent.

Comment #138: liberalrob  on  08/18  at  04:55 PM

And, at least at a public event, a armed person who is a cop is less likely to kill you than a small-dicked right-wing pin head who thinks carrying a semi-automatic rifle makes him A Man(tm).

Cops do tend to try to avoid witnesses when they murder people, I’ll grant you that. But even going against my assumption that this guy is a left-winger reacting to right-wing intimidation, I don’t believe that many black men in America have that sense of entitlement, that makes them think the “silent majority” will support their violence, that right-wing white men tend to have. Another reason I would not be scared to be around this particular person.

Comment #139: asdf  on  08/18  at  04:59 PM

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Health_amp_Fitness_11/Health_care_for_all_in_my_backyard.shtml

The Rev. M. Linda Jarmillo, the author of that eloquent piece, is a member of the UCC, not the NOI. It’s nice that Final Call published it, but it doesn’t mean they agree with it.

Well, sure, they aren’t Marxists. But the full quote isn’t an insult of religious people, anyway. It’s a bit of poetic love and understanding.

Ok, so they’re not liberals ... they’re not Marxists. They’re only selectively progressive. At this point using the term “leftist” to describe them is innaccurate by most people’s definition of the term.

And no, the full quote isn’t an insult of religious people—it’s an insult of those who use supernatural mumbo-humbo and illusions as way to divert people from demanding real and substantive happiness.

Comment #140: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  04:59 PM

a armed person who is a cop is less likely to kill you than a small-dicked right-wing pin head who thinks carrying a semi-automatic rifle makes him A Man(tm).

Nine times out of ten these are the same person.

Caton: I don’t know how we can make it any clearer to you. THEY ARE ASSHOLES. BUT THEY DID NOT BREAK ANY LAWS. WHAT THEY DID IS NOT OK, BUT IT IS LEGAL.

And if being able to perceive that something I personally dislike, abhor, reject may still be legal makes me a “gunfucker,” well, so fucking be it.

And re: all your “constitution does NOT do that!” stuff? Ninth fucking amendment.

Comment #141: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  05:00 PM

from #123

But there’s absolutely no reason to start hyperventilating about semi-automatics in particular. It’s silly, and not only does it feed the meme that liberals want to ban all guns, it makes you sound like you want to ban things you don’t even understand. It’s a great way to signal that you’re speaking from fear instead of rationality.

Let us stop being precious asdf. Openly brandishing a gun at a political event is not an innocent act. It is a highly theatrical act, and also an act with a definite meaning for security.

I have no problem with responsible gun use. I am not calling on the SS to do anything in particular,  nor am I criticizing them. I am simply saying that this protester was doing what we all know he was doing: attempting to frighten, rattle, inconvenience and possibly endanger other people that he doesn’t like. What I am sick of is the idea that guns can be brandished ‘innocently’. They can’t.

Comment #142: atheist  on  08/18  at  05:02 PM

“So, use the same laws that allowed Bush to push protesters into “free speech zones” without getting sued.”

Agreed.

Fine, you should have just said you were chucking in democracy for fascism. Could have saved us all a fuckton of energy. If it was wrong when Bush did it, it’s wrong when we do it too. You are acting INSANE, out of FEAR, just like a lunatic reichwinger.

Comment #143: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  05:02 PM

“other worlds, it’s also not in the Constitution that citizens are NOT allowed to attend political events and presidential appearances while armed. “

Wow.  So the original post made by Dan claiming that “it’s in the constitution” that guns at political events are allowed, was wrong, but you have shit to say about that and know you want to parse me.

Okay, I’ll play. 

Of course it’s not in the constitution that you aren’t allowed to bring guns to a political rally, because the constitution bestows rights.

the point is that there is no constitutional right to come to a political event armed, which was the claim made by Dan.  I will put you down as agreeing that Dan was wrong.

As for put them down, it is my belief that they are hoping to instigate an armed confrontation, but a mass one, like ruby ridge gone nationwide or something along those lines.  And that this administration fears that.  Now, if a shot is taken at a president, these guys are going to be put down at that time.  how?

Well, they wont’ be able to show up armed at presidential events nor will they permitted to hold signs that can reasonably be perceived to be a threat against the life of the President.  A sign reading “it’s time to water the tree of liberty” is such a sign. 

If you thought I meant kill them all or something, then I don’t know what to say.  That wasn’t in my mind when I wrote it and if it was in your mind when you read it, well…wipe your conscience?

Comment #144: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  05:03 PM

and why the SS shouldn’t double their protected perimeter, and what exact steps asdf IS recommending other than telling us which guns were and weren’t there, and what we CANNOT do.

I don’t see any problem with them doubling their perimeter. But like I said, I trust that the Secret Service can decide for themselves whether that’s something they need to do. Your opinions and mine are irrelevant; these people are experts. There’s a point at which expanding a perimeter spreads your personnel too thin; and I expect that they can find that point without your help, Caton.

Comment #145: asdf  on  08/18  at  05:04 PM

Convict them for violating American laws, then hand them over to the International Criminal Court and let them take it from there.

Did you follow the link, Mike?  There is a death penalty for certain violations under American law.

Now, I’m against the death penalty, period.  Even for this.  However, I am enough of a hypocrite that if it was applied to Bush and Chaney, having my philosophical objections ignored will be tempered by a great big spoonful of “and fuck you very much”.

Comment #146: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  05:04 PM

“Fine, you should have just said you were chucking in democracy for fascism. Could have saved us all a fuckton of energy. If it was wrong when Bush did it, it’s wrong when we do it too. You are acting INSANE, out of FEAR, just like a lunatic reichwinger. “

When bush did it - it was about FUCKING TSHIRTS!  Can we not permit gunfuckers to make us forget this please people?

this is not about TSHIRTS!

This is about loaded weapons.  There is absolutely no sane or reasonable rationale which would equate putting unarmed dissenters into free speech zones with putting ARMED dissenters into zones which are much further away from the President then right outside his event.

None whatsoever.  This is a false comparison.  this is nonsense.

Comment #147: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  05:05 PM

One trigger pull, one bullet.

Phew, that’s reassuring. One lousy bullet never hurt anybody.

This seems like just the usual nerdly quibbling that occurs when somebody uses the word “automatic” and a gun person assumes they mean it in the sense of full auto vs. semi-auto, rather than the mechanism of the weapon, in which sense automatic encompasses both semi and full auto fire.

To put this non/semi/fully-automatic business in a little bit of perspective- you can fire ~10-12 rounds per minute info a crowd with a bolt action rifle, vs. ~40 rpm on semi-auto, and ~100 rpm on full auto (reload time apparently takes a big bite out of the 500+ rpm cyclic rate). Now, I know jack shit about guns, but it looks to me like one-piddly-bullet-per-trigger-pull semi automatic is 4:1 more deadly than bolt action (yes, they still make them and lots of people own them), but fully 2:5 as deadly as full Ted Nugent auto. So this minimizing of the threat of semi-auto weapons seems like BS.

Comment #148: tb  on  08/18  at  05:06 PM

Fine, you should have just said you were chucking in democracy for fascism.

You’ll know when I’m chucking in democracy for fascism, because it will involve advocating attractive young MOTASes in tight leather uniforms.  I mean, otherwise what’s the *point*?

Comment #149: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  05:08 PM

The t-shirts are permitted within the laws of any state in the Union. The guns ARE PERMITTED in the states in which they have appeared.

You do not have to like it for it to be legal. You do not have to like it for it to be legal. You do not have to like it for it to be legal. You do not have to like it for it to be legal. You do not have to like it for it to be legal. You do not have to like it for it to be legal. You do not have to like it for it to be legal.

Comment #150: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  05:08 PM

i might also add, “it doesn’t have to be a GOOD IDEA for it to be legal, either.”

Comment #151: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  05:09 PM

“There’s a point at which expanding a perimeter spreads your personnel too thin; and I expect that they can find that point without your help, Caton.”

And I expect that, as Amanda said earlier, it is Obama who has directed them not to because he is trying to appease the gunfuckers and the right wing.  (not her exact words, but I don’t want to scroll all the way up)

And I believe it is wrong, and I believe that you asdf are one of the gun nuts.  And you are not erring on the side of caution. 

You want nothing done because you love guns and you relate to these gunfuckers.  That is what i get from your posts.  That is my strong impression. 

And I stand against you.  And I won’t make any apologies for that to anyone.  I know you’re well-liked here.

I don’t care.

Comment #152: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  05:09 PM

“Phew, that’s reassuring. One lousy bullet never hurt anybody. “

This!

Comment #153: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  05:10 PM

The Rev. M. Linda Jarmillo, the author of that eloquent piece, is a member of the UCC, not the NOI. It’s nice that Final Call published it, but it doesn’t mean they agree with it.

Can you really see the Nation of Islam letting anyone use their money to promote ideas they don’t agree with? I don’t think of them as particularly open-minded.

At this point using the term “leftist” to describe them is innaccurate by most people’s definition of the term.

I don’t agree, but I see where you’re coming from. Would you agree that they aren’t right-wingers either, though?

Comment #154: asdf  on  08/18  at  05:10 PM

When bush did it - it was about FUCKING TSHIRTS!  Can we not permit gunfuckers to make us forget this please people?

Was it the Secret Service enforcing the t-shirt perimeter? I don’t know off the top of my head, but I’d imagine they had other priorities.

I’m guessing it was a combination of the RNC organisers, on-site security guards, and the local cops.

Comment #155: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  05:12 PM

Let us stop being precious asdf. Openly brandishing a gun at a political event is not an innocent act. It is a highly theatrical act, and also an act with a definite meaning for security.

Find where I disagree with these statements.

Comment #156: asdf  on  08/18  at  05:12 PM

What if I had a sign that said “THE PUBLIC OPTION OR DEATH!”

Jesus, Caton, are we in the business of censoring signs now.?  Do want a national sign interpetation board?

Here’s the deal, you’re getting your undies in a bunch over absolutely goddam nothing.  These clowns knew what they were doing was perfectly legal.  They knew the Secret Service knew it was perfectly legal.  They knew they’d get their crazy mugs on TV.  They knew they’d pull certain liberal’s chains—which they live for.  What they didn’t know, but secretly hoped for in their black little hearts, was whether there would be a massive reaction by Obama.  All they got was a shrug.

Take a deep breath and ree-fucking-lax.  Let’s not be fools and play into their hands.

Comment #157: Magis  on  08/18  at  05:12 PM

I’d like to note that I, personally, am not fond of guns. Never owned one, probably never will. Think they’re useless and harmful etc.

But you know what I like even less? Penalizing legal behavior because someone doesn’t like it.

Comment #158: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  05:12 PM

No, it is NOT in the constitution that citizens are allowed to attend political events and presidential appearances while armed.

Let’s clear something up here.

I’ve seen you say repeatedly that these folks were allowed to attend a presidential appearance while they were armed.

Really?

Were they in the building where the president was?  Were they even allowed with 200 feet of the entrance to the building where the president was?

None of those loons in Phoenix was “allowed to attend a presidential appearance while they were armed”.  Not one person who was carrying a gun (outside of on-duty law enforcement officers and Secret Service agents) was allowed inside the building where President Obama was speaking, or anywhere near the President of the United States while his motorcade approached the event.

They were outside of the event, across the street.  Maybe even a block away… I don’t know.  I wasn’t there.  I don’t think you were, either.

Saying that they were “attending the presidential appearance” is like me saying that I saw this great band last night when in reality the band was playing in the basement of a club and I was a block away and across the street.

Perhaps the security perimeter should be greater, but at the same time, all it will do is make them stand two (or three or four or whatever) blocks away from the event instead of one, and they’ll still be there with their guns and their signs, the TV crews will still show up to put them on the news, and you’ll still be freaking out about them.

Comment #159: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  05:14 PM

The t-shirts are permitted within the laws of any state in the Union. The guns ARE PERMITTED in the states in which they have appeared.

This may be true - AND YET THE PEOPLE WITH T-SHORTS WERE ABLE TO BE CONFINED TO ONE SMALL AREA, APPARENTLY LEGALLY.

Why exactly can this not be done to people carrying goddamned loaded guns, ALSO LEGALLY?

Comment #160: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  05:15 PM

Why exactly can this not be done to people carrying goddamned loaded guns, ALSO LEGALLY?

And the answer is, of course it fucking can. But it SHOULD NOT BE. Because it never should have been done to anyone, in the first place. And the idea is not to suck as much as the shitheads suck. Remember?

Comment #161: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  05:16 PM

So this minimizing of the threat of semi-auto weapons seems like BS.

No one was minimizing it. But what do you want to do about them? We have banned fully-automatics because they aren’t really useful for self-defense. Ban semi-automatics, though, and you are saying people are not allowed to defend themselves.

Comment #162: asdf  on  08/18  at  05:17 PM

Now I know that the West Wing is a work of fiction, but I also know that they did their homework and I’m sure that the episode after the president was shot (season 2/3?) where the SS chief said (something along the lines of) “our job is to keep the president safe. If you tell us you don’t want to do something then we work around it, but we would never let you stop us from doing our job”.

I have every confidence that the real world SS has that same mind-set and even if President Obama asked them to not follow procedures put in place during the Bush administration they would still follow whatever procedures are currently required to keep the President safe.

Also, Caton your calling people who have guns “gunfuckers” is more than a little off-putting to those of us who can see that there’s a difference between a gun owner and a gun nut. Do you think that insulting asdf or others here will change his/her mind or the mind of others reading your posts? If not then what’s with the gratuitous insults? (also, it’s not even a good one… I mean, who’d really want to fuck a gun? I think it’d make a really poor toy all things considered… and be hell to clean too…)

Comment #163: kodiak  on  08/18  at  05:18 PM

Amusingly enough (or perhaps not as amusingly), I think the people reacting the way Caton is to firearms actually encourages the people with their over the top gun fetishes.

I mean, whenever someone walks or drives in with their penis substitute they want to provoke a reaction that makes them feel superior.  It doesn’t matter if it’s awe, admiration, or fear.

In other words, the people with the kneejerk reactions are enabling them.  Congratulations.

Comment #164: KeithM  on  08/18  at  05:20 PM

Can you really see the Nation of Islam letting anyone use their money to promote ideas they don’t agree with?

It’s a guest editorial in their “mainstream” newspaper, which they hope will be read by those outside the org and present a more friendly, moderate and open image to the public. So yeah, I can see them publishing a dissenting idea now and then.

I don’t agree, but I see where you’re coming from. Would you agree that they aren’t right-wingers either, though?

Of course—that’s my point. But (assuming it was an NOI member carrying the AR-15) I wouldn’t feel comfortable around anyone who felt it appropriate to do that, whether as a statement of opposition to Obama or as a statement of “defending” Obama.

Comment #165: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  05:22 PM

Find where I disagree with these statements.

To be fair, uou did say:

I’d ask that guy [i.e. the one with the AR-15] if he was an Obama supporter. And if he said yes, I’d feel perfectly safe standing next to him.

Which did imply that, if someone passes your personal political test, openly brandishing a gun at a political event can be an innocent act.

Comment #166: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  05:26 PM

You want nothing done because you love guns and you relate to these gunfuckers.  That is what i get from your posts.  That is my strong impression.

I do relate to the black guy with the AR-15, based on my strong impression that he is trying to stand up to right-wing intimidation. I would not do what he did, but I think I understand why he did it.

That does not mean that I don’t believe the Secret Service should be allowed to expand their perimeter if they feel it is necessary. What I want done is for the Secret Service to do whatever they feel is necessary to protect Barack Obama and our other elected politicians, to the full extent of the law. And the law is very much on their side, in this case.

So if it really is your impression that I want nothing done, you’re simply wrong. And I think your impression is based entirely in an irrational fiction, born of fear.

And I stand against you.  And I won’t make any apologies for that to anyone.  I know you’re well-liked here.

I don’t think I’m any more liked than you are. People disagree with both of us fairly often. I usually hope it doesn’t lead to personal animosity, but it sometimes does.

I believe we’re on the same side, though.

Comment #167: asdf  on  08/18  at  05:27 PM

Ban semi-automatics, though, and you are saying people are not allowed to defend themselves.

I’m not suggesting they should be banned. But why is semi-auto so suitable for self-defense and a revolver or pump shotgun so not? For decades those were all the police carried and they did OK.

Comment #168: tb  on  08/18  at  05:28 PM

I’m really not into copying Bush, thanks anyway PIaTOR.

Comment #169: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  05:29 PM

THE PEOPLE WITH T-SHORTS WERE ABLE TO BE CONFINED TO ONE SMALL AREA, APPARENTLY LEGALLY.

Why exactly can this not be done to people carrying goddamned loaded guns, ALSO LEGALLY?

Yup. And surrounded by cops visibly aiming at them.

Comment #170: lostmypassword  on  08/18  at  05:30 PM

Which did imply that, if someone passes your personal political test, openly brandishing a gun at a political event can be an innocent act.

Ah. Well, that’s not what I meant. I was just talking about my own feelings of personal safety. It’s not the same thing.

I’d be standing near him and not the right-wingers because if a crossfire started, he could provide cover.

Comment #171: asdf  on  08/18  at  05:30 PM

You are acting INSANE, out of FEAR, just like a lunatic reichwinger.

No. Caton is acting rational, just from premises that you don’t share.

Comment #172: atheist  on  08/18  at  05:30 PM

Caton:

No, it is NOT in the constitution that citizens are allowed to attend political events and presidential appearances while armed. This is patently false. I am surprised to find so many gunfuckers on a liberal site, but you guys are definitely here. Fine, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

Nowhere in the constitution is the “right” to come armed to a political protest/demonstration or a Presidential appearance guaranteed. If it were in the constitution then you’d have to explain why you cannot do any such thing in many states. But you cannot explain that because you have lied.

Please don’t make me quote the Second Amendment to you like you were a fucking five-year-old. Last time I checked, it didn’t have any restrictions at all on where and when it was in effect.

Also, how fucking pathetic is it that you instantly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a gibbering, frothing-at-the-mouth gun nut? That’s a pretty glaring sign that even you know you don’t have an argument. I mean, unless that’s just the way you think arguments are made, in which case you should probably ask Fox News if they have any on-air openings.

I never said the SS is too ideological or incompetent to take further steps, I said that my guess is they aren’t doing it (probably on directions from Obama himself) because a militia uprising is feared. My belief is that is coming sooner or later, and we shouldn’t be intimidated out of taking common sense steps for fear of it.

My belief is that the Secret Service knows a little more about presidential security than some random wanker on the internet.

Magis just because your opinion differs from mine, does not mean I do not know what I am talking about.

The simple fact that you have an opinion is not proof that you aren’t completely full of shit, especially not when you’re demonstrably full of shit.

Comment #173: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  08/18  at  05:31 PM

I’ll repeat what was said above:

People like this live only to “make the liberals MAD” and that’s what they were trying to do here. And they succeeded with some, but I’m glad they were met by only a police escort and a shrug by the people at the event.

Comment #174: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  05:32 PM

Find where I disagree with these statements.

It really seemed to me that you were pretending that brandishing these weapons could be an innocent act, and that, if the guy was pro-Obama, could even make you feel safe.

Comment #175: atheist  on  08/18  at  05:37 PM

Ah. Well, that’s not what I meant. I was just talking about my own feelings of personal safety. It’s not the same thing.

My feelings of personal safety have nothing to do with a political test, and everything to do with my assessment of the owner’s judgment in re: firearms safety. The fact that he’d bring an assault rifle to an event like this doesn’t inspire a whole lot of confidence in his judgment regarding firearms.

I’d be standing near him and not the right-wingers because if a crossfire started, he could provide cover.

Come on, asdf, this is getting silly. You’re starting to sound like the gun-nuts who always crawl out of the woodwork after someone “goes postal” to bemoan the fact that the victims weren’t armed. Responsible parties (like the Secret Service, and even the local cops) understand that the point is to avoid a crossfire in the first place, within the limits/allowances of the law.

Comment #176: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  05:40 PM

I am simply saying that this protester was doing what we all know he was doing: attempting to frighten, rattle, inconvenience and possibly endanger other people that he doesn’t like.

I agree.  I think most of us agree on this point.

What I am sick of is the idea that guns can be brandished ‘innocently’. They can’t.

On this point, I also agree.  And if anyone of these asswipes starts brandishing a gun outside a political rally, I would hope that law enforcement would intervene swiftly.

Problem is… none of these folks were brandishing their weapons, as far as I could tell.

Main Entry: bran·dish
Pronunciation: \ˈbran-dish\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English braundisshen, from Anglo-French brandiss-, stem of brandir, from brant, braund sword, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English brand
Date: 14th century
1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

There is a significant difference between what these people appeared to be doing - standing with idiotic signs with guns holstered on their sides - and brandishing those guns.  In most states with open and closed carry laws, there are some pretty specific guidelines as to what you legally can and cannot do with a loaded firearm in public.

In a state like Arizona:

You CAN walk around in public carrying a loaded firearm secured to your person in some fashion, most commonly in a holster.

You CANNOT walk around with a loaded firearm shaking or waving (also known as brandishing) that weapon menacingly in public.

Comment #177: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  05:40 PM

I’m not suggesting they should be banned. But why is semi-auto so suitable for self-defense and a revolver or pump shotgun so not? For decades those were all the police carried and they did OK.

Most newly made revolvers these days are semi-automatic. I’m not sure whether the cops’ revolvers were. As for a pump action shotgun, it’s fine for keeping in the car, but it’s awfully impractical if you’re out walking around.

I’m concerned about being assaulted by groups of straight white men, based on my past experience of being assaulted by groups of straight white men, for being gay. I am determined that it will not happen again. I do not expect that I would ever have to do more than display my gun to deter them. But if the worst happens, I do not want to be worrying about how my next bullet gets into the chamber.

Comment #178: asdf  on  08/18  at  05:40 PM

Unless you live in the middle of a war, or a zone with terrible crime, people brandishing guns in public should not make you feel safe. This does not include gun ranges, hunters, etc. That is how I see it.

If, in fact, life in the USA has become a de-facto war zone, or a zone where we really do need guns to deter all the other motherfuckers with guns, then I will adjust to that reality. But we should not pretend it is normal, or a good thing.

Comment #179: atheist  on  08/18  at  05:43 PM

I’m not suggesting they should be banned. But why is semi-auto so suitable for self-defense and a revolver or pump shotgun so not? For decades those were all the police carried and they did OK.

I’m having trouble seeing a huge inherent difference between a semi-auto and a revolver. They have distinct strengths—it’s easier to reload a semi-auto quickly, and they’re generally smaller, slimmer weapons, but they jam much more easily and require more care. Still, they’re basically similar weapons—one shot per trigger pull, with only short pauses necessary between shots.

The thing that always annoyed me about the AR-15 isn’t the semi-automatic nature of the weapon but the freaking 30-round magazines that the real gun nuts insist upon. 30 rounds somehow breaks my credulity about self-defense; it takes it out of “one dangerous criminal” scenarios that I can actually imagine and into “army of ninjas” territory. “What if you miss with your first shot” is a reasonable question. “What if you miss with your first 29” is best answered “either learn to shoot or stop carrying that fucking thing.”

Comment #180: Llelldorin  on  08/18  at  05:43 PM

No. Caton is acting rational, just from premises that you don’t share.

At what point did Caton act rationally rather than out of emotion?  Was it when he was calling people gunfuckers for pointing out the legality of the protestor’s acts?  Was it when he ignored the text of the Constitution? 

Lookee,

I can understand when people, especially people who aren’t ever near guns, see guns at a political event and go HOLY SHIT!  That MUST be against the law!

But it wasn’t, and isn’t.  It’s why they did it.  To.  Pull.  Your.  Chains.  ‘Kay, ball’s in your court now.

Comment #181: Magis  on  08/18  at  05:44 PM

Problem is… none of these folks were brandishing their weapons, as far as I could tell.

From the pictures I’ve seen the AR-15 was being carried, slung over his back. Which is still crappy firearms judgment in the context of this event, even if it is perfectly legal behaviour.

Comment #182: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  05:45 PM

My feelings of personal safety have nothing to do with a political test, and everything to do with my assessment of the owner’s judgment in re: firearms safety. The fact that he’d bring an assault rifle to an event like this doesn’t inspire a whole lot of confidence in his judgment regarding firearms.

You are perfectly well entitled to that judgment. You may be right.

Come on, asdf, this is getting silly. You’re starting to sound like the gun-nuts who always crawl out of the woodwork after someone “goes postal” to bemoan the fact that the victims weren’t armed. Responsible parties (like the Secret Service, and even the local cops) understand that the point is to avoid a crossfire in the first place, within the limits/allowances of the law.

Of course the point is to avoid a crossfire! I’m just saying that I try to be aware of my surroundings.

Comment #183: asdf  on  08/18  at  05:45 PM

But it wasn’t, and isn’t.  It’s why they did it.  To.  Pull.  Your.  Chains.  ‘Kay, ball’s in your court now.

Basically, they were trolling. So were the Black Panthers back when they did it.

Comment #184: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  05:46 PM

I guess it’s a fact that I live in a country that worships the gun and that puts the so-called “right” to own and even carry one, over anyone else’s rights.

We’re the only country that has this mindset, and we have a lot of dead every year to prove it.

Even liberals don’t want to get into sensible and rational gun control.  It saddens me.  It shows me that what i have been thinking about lately really is true.  I was born in the wrong country, and I really don’t belong here.  But alas I’m stuck here for probably another decade. 

And dan, don’t think I didn’t see what you did.  YOur first post made the claim that I’m a fucking moron because I don’t know that the right to carry a gun to a political protest is “in the constitution”.  And you then changed your claim and called me a fucking moron again.  Well I’ll tell you one thing I am not and that’s a liar.  But you are.

I’m done with this thread now.  It makes me too sick to my stomach.  I supposed will revisit when the shit goes down.  I can’t wait to see the crocodile tears then.

Comment #185: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  05:47 PM

We’re the only country that has this mindset

Not really. Finland has pretty lax gun laws. So does Canada.

Comment #186: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  05:49 PM

I’m sorry the phrase gunfucker gets so many, well, gunfuckers upset.

It’s meant to evoke a gun nut who considers those gun magazines with the big uzis and women in bikinis brandishing them to be arousing porn.

I didn’t know we were so delicate around here.

Funny, we never were before.

Only when it comes to guns.

Hmmm.

Comment #187: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  05:49 PM

I’d like to note that I, personally, am not fond of guns. Never owned one, probably never will. Think they’re useless and harmful etc.

But you know what I like even less? Penalizing legal behavior because someone doesn’t like it.

+1

I hate guns.

This is perhaps the first online argument I’ve ever had in my life about guns where I’m arguing in defense of the rights of gun owners.

But I’m not even so much arguing in defense of the rights of gun owners as I am arguing in defense of the rule of law.

Comment #188: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  05:49 PM

It really seemed to me that you were pretending that brandishing these weapons could be an innocent act, and that, if the guy was pro-Obama, could even make you feel safe.

With some context. I’d feel safest of all if no one was armed. But if the right-wingers are going to be armed, I’d feel slightly safer with an armed left-winger between them and me. That’s all.

Comment #189: asdf  on  08/18  at  05:49 PM

Ben, Canada and Finland don’t “worship the gun and that puts the so-called “right” to own and even carry one, over anyone else’s rights” which is the part of my post you cut out so that you could act as if you were teaching me something.

Comment #190: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  05:51 PM

Most newly made revolvers these days are semi-automatic.

No, they don’t load themselves on recoil or gas action.  However, you can fire a round on double action revolvers just by pulling the trigger though that is more than a century old.  Semi-auto handguns (aka autoloaders) generally carry more rounds and reload much faster.  But, to paraphrase an old Border Patrolman (and a poster above), “you can’t miss fast enough to win a gun fight.”

Wankery, though.  The question is can you carry any gun to a rally.  The answer is yes.  The fact that it is assinine doesn’t alter that fact.  Nor does it alter the fact they wanted kneejerk and didn’t get it, hooray for the good guys.

Comment #191: Magis  on  08/18  at  05:52 PM

You are perfectly well entitled to that judgment. You may be right.

I couldn’t possibly comment.

Of course the point is to avoid a crossfire! I’m just saying that I try to be aware of my surroundings.

In that case, I’d suggest you stay well away from anyone at an event like this who’s carrying around a firearm. Including cops.

Comment #192: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  05:52 PM

DTG in STL, perhaps I am being too touchy about brandishing. To me, the fact that you are visibly carrying a gun sends the intended message. Maybe to you, that is normal.

I realize that different areas have different norms of gun use, and I don’t think that everyone who owns or uses guns is a ‘gun nut’. It just seems to me that, even visibly wearing a gun at a political rally is theatrical and intentionally threatening. Perhaps you will see it differently.

Comment #193: atheist  on  08/18  at  05:54 PM

If they were an actual threat, and not trolls, they would have tried to sneak a small, loaded pistol into the actual building where the President was.

Comment #194: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  05:54 PM

It just seems to me that, even visibly wearing a gun at a political rally is theatrical and intentionally threatening. Perhaps you will see it differently.

Again, it’s called “trolling”.

Comment #195: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  05:55 PM

One thing that does worry me, in the long run—does Arizona at least have laws against political intimidation? Or can, say, Minuteman groups send squads of armed guys to hang around outside local Democratic Party offices and write down license plate numbers?

Where, legally, is the cutoff? Is brandishing, at least, illegal?

Comment #196: Llelldorin  on  08/18  at  05:57 PM

I’m sorry the phrase gunfucker gets so many, well, gunfuckers upset.

It gets responsible gun owners and gun users upset when applied in a blanket manner them as well as idiots like the AR-15 toter. Which, I’m afraid, you were doing (and continue to do so by implying that responsible firearms users are suspiciously touchy).

I mean, I don’t go around calling every African-American person I meet a “gangsta”—only the Crips and the Bloods (and not to their faces).

Comment #197: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  05:57 PM

Where, legally, is the cutoff? Is brandishing, at least, illegal?

Brandishing is illegal everywhere. If he took that gun off his shoulder, and started aiming it, or waving it around, the police would move in and confiscate it rather quickly. And he knows that.

Comment #198: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  05:58 PM

”I couldn’t possibly comment.”

:D

No, seriously, I’m saying it’s quite possible that I have poor judgment. You really might be right. I’m not going to try to defend my view any more than this, because that would imply I’m more certain than I am. And who knows what that guy’s like in person? If he was giving off bad vibes, I wouldn’t stick around.

Comment #199: asdf  on  08/18  at  06:00 PM

I should say its illegal if no one is threatening you. If someone demands all your money or threatens to beat you up, yeah, then you can brandish it.

Comment #200: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  06:00 PM

No. Caton is acting rational,

Yes, screaming GUNFUCKER at everyone on the thread who disagrees with her is terribly rational.

Comment #201: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  06:03 PM

Problem is… none of these folks were brandishing their weapons, as far as I could tell.

From the pictures I’ve seen the AR-15 was being carried, slung over his back. Which is still crappy firearms judgment in the context of this event, even if it is perfectly legal behaviour.

Fair enough… but my initial point remains the same.  Nobody there was “brandishing” their gun, based on any of the video I saw.

If you walk into a crowded public event where Secret Service agents are everywhere around you, and you decide it would be a good idea to take your gun into your hands and start waving it around in the air - which is the literal definition of “brandishing” - there’s a pretty good chance that you are gonna have your brains splattered on the ground by a sniper shot taken from a few hundred meters away.

I guarantee that every damn one of those wingnuts with a gun yesterday was being watched like a hawk by some guy with an earpiece on a roof with high-powered binoculars in one hand, and a high-powered sniper rifle in the other hand.

Comment #202: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  06:07 PM

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but “Chris B.” isn’t a liberal. In fact, he’s some kind of extreme libertarian, anti-tax, black helicopter loony, and he belongs to an organization of like-minded people in AZ. As for why he’s doing this- he, like a lot of other black conservatives, could be driven by acting out his own personal version of “Revenge of The Nerds”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GiXzpfGhA

Comment #203: Plantsmantx  on  08/18  at  06:10 PM

Again, it’s called “trolling”.

That’s a good way of looking at it, Ben D., yeah.

The only thing is, there’s just a difference between trolling on the internet, where the only thing that can get hurt is one’s ego, and the real world, where one can totally be shot dead. Perhaps I’m too fearful, but I can’t forget that fact.

Comment #204: atheist  on  08/18  at  06:10 PM

The only thing is, there’s just a difference between trolling on the internet, where the only thing that can get hurt is one’s ego, and the real world, where one can totally be shot dead. Perhaps I’m too fearful, but I can’t forget that fact.

Fair ‘nuff. But I think the only ones in danger of being hurt there were the trolls themselves. One false (even if innocent) move and they would have had a sniper bullet through their brains. They were putting their asses in danger, too.

Comment #205: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  06:12 PM

I mean, whenever someone walks or drives in with their penis substitute they want to provoke a reaction that makes them feel superior.  It doesn’t matter if it’s awe, admiration, or fear.

Oh, please.  I’ve hunted; I’ve killed things with guns (*).  I don’t have any objections to guns qua guns - hunting is less dangerous than driving.

Injecting them into the political process is a whole other matter.  There’s a Chinese (I think): “Weapons are tools of ill omen”.

Comment #206: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  06:13 PM

Or at least in the GREATEST danger of being hurt.

Comment #207: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  06:13 PM

Fair enough… but my initial point remains the same.  Nobody there was “brandishing” their gun, based on any of the video I saw.

I was agreeing with your initial point, and with the practical ramifications.

I guarantee that every damn one of those wingnuts with a gun yesterday was being watched like a hawk by some guy with an earpiece on a roof with high-powered binoculars in one hand, and a high-powered sniper rifle in the other hand.

Not only that, I’m confident they wouldn’t have let him within 600m (about a third of a mile) of the President without (at the very least) ensuring that the rifle was unloaded and that he was carrying no ammunition.

Comment #208: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  06:15 PM

Also, and this is reaching way back, but (boldface mine)

And I expect that, as Amanda said earlier, it is Obama who has directed them not to because he is trying to appease the gunfuckers and the right wing.

“defuse” and “appease” are two entirely different concepts. What Amanda said was that Obama recognizes the counterproductivity of going Jack Bauer on these wankers. If he cracks down on gun owners, the ACTUAL gunfuckers win the fight. He’s smarter than to play into their hands.

Comment #209: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  06:15 PM

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but “Chris B.” isn’t a liberal. In fact, he’s some kind of extreme libertarian, anti-tax, black helicopter loony, and he belongs to an organization of like-minded people in AZ. As for why he’s doing this- he, like a lot of other black conservatives, could be driven by acting out his own personal version of “Revenge of The Nerds”.

Well, there you go.

I still like his glasses, though.

Comment #210: asdf  on  08/18  at  06:15 PM

I guess we big-city-dwelling types do sometimes take a really hard line against guns that, frankly, legitimately pisses normal gun owners off. Sometimes a gun really is just a tool, not a penis substitute.

Comment #211: atheist  on  08/18  at  06:17 PM

I guess we big-city-dwelling types do sometimes take a really hard line against guns that, frankly, legitimately pisses normal gun owners off. Sometimes a gun really is just a tool, not a penis substitute.

Yes, it is a urban/rural split. Most Republicans in the cities are pro-gun control, while Democrats in rural areas are anti-gun control. But urban areas are almost entirely Democratic now thanks to the Republican Party imploding, and rural areas are usually (though not always, see: the Upper Midwest, New England) conservative.

Comment #212: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  06:21 PM

Even liberals don’t want to get into sensible and rational gun control.

Sure we do.  Have you not seen almost everyone agreeing with you about how undesirable it is to have guns out in public?  But what you’re suggesting is that the Secret Service be directed by the Executive Branch to violate rights guaranteed by the Constitution and (so far) upheld in court, and I just can’t support that, no matter how noble the goal.  The ends do not justify the means.

Of course we should have stricter gun laws.  But after 20 or 30 years of fighting to get them, we’ve gotten pretty much nowhere.  Unfortunately, usually it takes someone important or some kids getting shot before people in this country will consider tighter gun laws.  The “Brady Bill” restrictions were only passed because Press Secretary James Brady got shot during the attempted assassination of President Reagan.  If you wanted to be born in a country with no history of widespread gun ownership and liberal gun laws, you were indeed born in the wrong country.  Go watch “Bowling for Columbine” again.  This is a country where banks give out shotguns like toasters for opening accounts.  It’s going to take generations to change that mindset.

Comment #213: liberalrob  on  08/18  at  06:23 PM

Sometimes a gun really is just a tool, not a penis substitute.

Take it to a political rally, and it’s there as a phallic threat.

Comment #214: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  06:23 PM

DTG in STL, perhaps I am being too touchy about brandishing. To me, the fact that you are visibly carrying a gun sends the intended message. Maybe to you, that is normal.

I realize that different areas have different norms of gun use, and I don’t think that everyone who owns or uses guns is a ‘gun nut’. It just seems to me that, even visibly wearing a gun at a political rally is theatrical and intentionally threatening. Perhaps you will see it differently.

Let me repeat what I said upthread in regards to your assertion that these people are doing this as a way to invoke intimidation…

Yes.  I AGREE 100%.

They are assholes, fuckheads, small-dicked losers who get off on showing what super manly men they are by displaying their metal cocks.

They are actively trying to stir shit up and get people freaked the hell out.

And based on many comments in this thread… it’s working.

I am not in the NRA, I do not own any guns, I don’t plan to ever own any guns, I am not a fan of guns, and I wish our gun laws weren’t so lax as what they are now.

I don’t know how I could possibly make it any more clear that I am not a “gun nut”, “gunfucker”, or even a gun rights advocate.

I don’t like guns.  I think people who would bring guns to a political rally as a means of intimidation are fucking assholes.

Period.

My stance isn’t about defending racist rightwing gun nuts from criticism for being assholes.

My stance is about defending racist rightwing gun nuts against the suggestion that we should behave extrajudicially in how we deal with them.

I don’t have any stake in the gun-rights fight.  I DO have a stake in the fight to protect other citizens from being subjected to wrongful arrest, or worse, from the suggestion that we should “put them down” because they happen to be assholes.

When Caton started saying that we should “put them down” and “bring the hammer down” on these loons, who while vile and detestable in their ideology and tactics, are behaving as COMPLETELY LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, my Bushtactic alarm bells went off.  Because this is the sort of stuff that Reichwingers have been suggesting constantly for the past 8 years… that they should be able to just take citizens and lock them up and throw away the key essentially because of ideological differences.

These gun-toting folks in Phoenix yesterday are vile, slimy, racist assholes.  What they aren’t - at least not based on any of their actions yesterday - is criminals.  And I am not in favor of treating citizens who aren’t criminals as if they were.

Comment #215: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  06:26 PM

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this yet, but “Chris B.” isn’t a liberal. In fact, he’s some kind of extreme libertarian, anti-tax, black helicopter loony, and he belongs to an organization of like-minded people in AZ. As for why he’s doing this- he, like a lot of other black conservatives, could be driven by acting out his own personal version of “Revenge of The Nerds”.

Thanks for that. Wow, you aren’t kidding about Teh Looney. A nice anti-vax banner up on the wall of his clubhouse. Bet he has some good 9/11 Twoof to share, too. I don’t know if you can call him a conservative—he’s too crazy (not to mention too dusky) even for Pat Buchanan. Lyndon Larouche might be down with him, though.

Forget Obama—I wouldn’t get within 600m of this armed nutjob. And I certainly wouldn’t take the time to find out whether or not (hint: NOT!) he was an Obama supporter before I made that decision.

Comment #216: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  06:26 PM

Yes, it is a urban/rural split. Most Republicans in the cities are pro-gun control, while Democrats in rural areas are anti-gun control.

I always assumed that this was for two basic reasons:

(1) Cities have animal control agencies, and no game animals. Thus, the two most common rural uses of guns, hunting for food and killing rabid animals, rarely if ever occur to urban dwellers. This makes guns much less a tool of everyday life and much more explicitly a weapon against humans.

(2) The population density in cities is high enough that the odds of missed shots hitting bystanders is absurdly higher in urban environments than it is in rural areas. When I was growing up, for example, rural folks were always incredulous at the deaths every year in LA County from shots fired into the air coming back down and hitting people.

Comment #217: Llelldorin  on  08/18  at  06:29 PM

I guess we big-city-dwelling types do sometimes take a really hard line against guns

I would like to also note that I am a big-city-dwelling type. And while I’m pro-gun-control, I find the demands that these people be “rounded up” a la the RNC protesters much more frightening than the actual gun-carriers. Because I already knew the gun-carriers were facists. The would-be liberal avengers? Those are a surprise. Sort of.

Comment #218: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  06:29 PM

Also, Llelldorin, in the cities police have a much better response time. If you’re in trouble they can get to you quickly. If you’re in the sticks and some psycho tries to break into your home, it is going to be a long while before the cops show up.

Comment #219: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  06:31 PM

Ben D., how often does that come up in practice? (Not a rhetorical question—I’m honestly curious!) My friends who grew up in rural areas always described hunting, and being terrified of rabid animals, but never encountered psychos preying on folks out it the sticks.

Comment #220: Llelldorin  on  08/18  at  06:34 PM

Ben D., how often does that come up in practice? (Not a rhetorical question—I’m honestly curious!) My friends who grew up in rural areas always described hunting, and being terrified of rabid animals, but never encountered psychos preying on folks out it the sticks.

It is not probable, but it can happen. Remember those two idiots who killed that Dartmouth college professor in New Hampshire (forget their names)? Well, they weren’t their first choice. First they tried to kill a farmer, but he sensed something was up. When they wouldn’t go away and insisted on coming into “use the phone” he brandished a revolver and they ran away.

Comment #221: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  06:36 PM

Oh, and on the Bush rally t-shirts thing, that’s exactly the WRONG behavior to emulate.  Whoever did it, RNC, Bush campaign flacks, local cops, it was a misuse of power to stifle dissent.  The “free speech zones” were and are a travesty; the only “free speech zone” there should be is the entire country.  By permitting these “free speech zones” to exist we’ve taken a step down the road toward outlawing dissent altogether.  Along the same lines, I know the fake town hall protesters are annoying but the solution to them is to show up in equal numbers and out-shout them, not try to pre-identify and segregate them.  If they want a war, give it to them; they’re the minority and they’ll lose, but first we have to choose to fight, and we have to choose to fight within the rules.

Comment #222: liberalrob  on  08/18  at  06:38 PM

As much as Caton as blindly lashing out in all directions at this point, I can’t help but sympathize with the rage. 

These people are killing us.  George Tiller and the UU Curch shooting are things that have already happened.  Limbaugh and Beck and O’Reilly declare war not just on public figures (not that that would be okay) but on anyone who isn’t a wingnut, then deny any responsibility and cast the blame on the victim when one of their followers takes the logical last step.  It’s the same strategy the anti-choice movement honed to perfection: take intimidation right up to the ragged edge of legality (which you constantly push), and count on the fact that a few expendable, deniable grunts will occasionally take that last step to give the intimidation some teeth.

Is it legal for wingnuts to bring guns to rallies?  Apparently it is.  It would also be legal for them to wear white hoods, hold up nooses and casually swing baseball bats around.  The message is the same: we can hurt or kill you anytime we want.  You may think you matter, but we’re the ones really in charge here.

And given the fact that liberals get locked up for wearing t-shirts outside of Free Speech Zones while these scumbags are packing iron and waving around signs with the most transparently veiled of death threats, I can’t say they’re wrong. 

And we sit here, defending their right to do so. 

To be honest, I don’t find “we don’t want to be like them” a very satisfying argument at all.  They have power out of all proportion to their numbers because they’re dangerous.  When someone does something that liberals don’t like, we write angry letters and maybe boycott.  When someone does something wingnuts don’t like, they get death threats.  Guess who actually gets people to do what they want? 

I’m not too worried about wanting to avoid the “both sides” argument, either.  As we’ve seen, if we don’t do anything real, they’ll make shit up. 

Wouldn’t it be nice if, for once, they were the ones living in fear?  If Randall Terry had to wear a flack jacket to church?  If O’Reilly had to decide, before he painted a target on someone else’s back, if he could handle the return fire?  If Limbaugh had to wonder, when he opened his mail each morning, if he was going to get another envelope full of white powder?

Not a serious endorsement of anything real.  Just some rage.  I get awfully tired of the bullies getting away with everything because we have to be the better people.

Comment #223: Seraph  on  08/18  at  06:39 PM

Yeah, saying we should have “free speech zones” and all that crap cause Bush did it is like saying it was OK to intern Japanese-Americans because the Japanese abused our POWs.

Comment #224: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  06:40 PM

Thanks for that. Wow, you aren’t kidding about Teh Looney. A nice anti-vax banner up on the wall of his clubhouse. Bet he has some good 9/11 Twoof to share, too. I don’t know if you can call him a conservative—he’s too crazy (not to mention too dusky) even for Pat Buchanan. Lyndon Larouche might be down with him, though.

As much as people always pin the whole 9/11-Truther thing on liberals, the truth is… one of the biggest 9/11 Truthers in America is Alex Jones.  Who is FAR, FAR, FAR from liberal… he is an ultra-paleoconservative.  Think Pat Buchanan cubed.  The guy is a supreme wingnut asshole, and probably shares many of the sentiments of the Teabaggers.  And he’s a supreme 9/11 Truther, but for him, it’s all about the evil Jooooos - and those folks hate Paul Wolfowitz and Bill Kristol just as much as they hate Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, even though they are ideological opponents in the Rep/Dem dichotomy.

Comment #225: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  06:40 PM

To follow up what Plantsmantx said:

The guy was a Ron Paul supporter and the interview was set up with him in advance by the “journalist” who was ... wait for it ... another Ron Paul supporter.

Not.  A.  Liberal.

Comment #226: seeker6079  on  08/18  at  06:45 PM

Well Rob, I am already doing that.  But a liberal is going to get shot at one of these townhalls.  And to be perfectly honestly, I hope it isn’t me.

I hope it’s a “liberal” who is defending bringing loaded guns to political events as “perfectly legal” even with the caveat that they find it really “unfortunate”.

But I highly doubt that any of the people aruging that actually, you know, attend political rallies where they might get a bullet in the ass.

But, perhaps I’m wrong.

In either case, I really hope the dead liberal it’s going to take before we take this seriously isn’t me.

Comment #227: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  06:47 PM

I hate Ron Paul more than anything for ruining the internet. Do you know how many idiots just spew his nonsense about the gold standard and the fed verbatim now compared to two years ago? Fuck him sideways. He’s taken over about 60% of the ‘net.

Comment #228: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  06:47 PM

I am not in the NRA, I do not own any guns, I don’t plan to ever own any guns, I am not a fan of guns, and I wish our gun laws weren’t so lax as what they are now.

And just for the record, many of us who own guns agree that guns should be more stringently regulated. I’ve said before that there should be long waiting periods of a month or more, mandatory safety classes, requirements to prove that the purchaser already owns an adequate gun safe, and a federal gun registry.

There are important shades of gray.

Comment #229: asdf  on  08/18  at  06:48 PM

As much as people always pin the whole 9/11-Truther thing on liberals, the truth is… one of the biggest 9/11 Truthers in America is Alex Jones.  Who is FAR, FAR, FAR from liberal… he is an ultra-paleoconservative.  Think Pat Buchanan cubed.

More like Pat Buchanan TimeCubed. If we’re going to stick with the limited left-wing and right-wing descriptors, we have to acknowledge that they often find common cause at their extremes. The term “conservative” applies as much to this kook as the term “leftist” does to the NOI.

Comment #230: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  06:51 PM

I hope it’s a “liberal” who is defending bringing loaded guns to political events as “perfectly legal” even with the caveat that they find it really “unfortunate”.

But I highly doubt that any of the people aruging that actually, you know, attend political rallies where they might get a bullet in the ass.

Yeah, at this point you can go fuck yourself. I’m sorry I was civil to you.

Comment #231: asdf  on  08/18  at  06:51 PM

I want to repeat this:

I think it explains why so many genuine gun nuts don’t have any interest in going into the military, but still think combat is heroic—they really think of themselves as the only real patriots in the country and are itching to prove it.
Comment #38: montag

These are people who are so scared of having their hubris called on them and being exposed for the hypocrits they are that they refuse to even consider placing themselves in a situation where they will compete on an equal basis with others.

They know that the military, though mostly in the enlisted ranks, is actually a meritocracy.  And they will have the fact that brown people and women will not just prove their equals, but in many cases their superiors.
They know their entitlement will be stripped away and all their beloved natural supremecy will be knocked down and buried on the drill field.

Comment #232: cynickal  on  08/18  at  06:52 PM

If we’re going to stick with the limited left-wing and right-wing descriptors, we have to acknowledge that they often find common cause at their extremes.

And strangely, they both end up in the realm of anti-semitism at their most extreme. The typical ANSWER member and Alex Jones both blame everything on Teh J0000000000.

Comment #233: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  06:53 PM

Yeah, saying we should have “free speech zones” and all that crap cause Bush did it is like saying it was OK to intern Japanese-Americans because the Japanese abused our POWs.

Bush did it and apparently it was legal.  Saying that it can’t be applied to people carrying guns is therefore factually wrong (as far as I can see).

As regards the ethics of “free speech zones” vs “second amendment zones”, it is quite possible to argue that

(i) a free speech zone is antithetical to democracy - dissent must be able to be expressed and registered.

(ii) a “second amendment zone” is compatible with democracy - an attempt to intimidate the other side through a display of force is not democratic.

So, if a “second amendment zone” is both legal and compatible with democracy, why the hell not?  They can carry guns, but will be kept away from the rest of the crowd.  Or they can leave the guns behind, and join the rest of the crowd - their choice.

Just asking, Ben - have you considered what your reaction will be if (as seems all too possible) someone gets shot at one of these events?  Or many people get shot?

Comment #234: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  06:55 PM

I’m sick to death of these Reich Wingers acting like they’re being oppressed, that they are the only Real Americans, and how easily the Democrats give in to them. Can you imagine if POC had shown up where Bush was speaking armed? What utter bullshit this all is.

Comment #235: pitbullgirl65  on  08/18  at  06:57 PM

Llelldorin:

Does “In Cold Blood” ring a bell?

Actually, guns are more often carried but there is less violence in rural areas and less carried (legally) in urban areas where there is much more violence.  Is there a correlation?  I’ve often wondered if there are actually more guns per capita in urban areas if we don’t think about whether they’re being carried legally or not.  We do know that when a state adopts “shall issue” concealed carry permits the crime rates go down though I admit to most that is counter-intuitive.

I understand that guns are frightening to people who’ve not been around them.  They are far less leathal than automobiles but we’re used to dodging them every day.  I wouldn’t want the ability to carry concealed taken away but I, for one, think carrying a weapon openly could at least be considered ‘disturbing the peace.’  It upsets a lot of people whether its rational or not.

Comment #236: Magis  on  08/18  at  06:57 PM

They already have a gun-free zone in a 600m parameter around the President.

Just asking, Ben - have you considered what your reaction will be if (as seems all too possible) someone gets shot at one of these events?

Just asking, since you oppose the PATRIOT ACT, what will your reaction be if there’s a terrorist attack?

Thanks for that detour into Dick Cheney-esque “logic”.

Comment #237: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  06:58 PM

Wouldn’t it be nice if, for once, they were the ones living in fear?  If Randall Terry had to wear a flack jacket to church?  If O’Reilly had to decide, before he painted a target on someone else’s back, if he could handle the return fire?  If Limbaugh had to wonder, when he opened his mail each morning, if he was going to get another envelope full of white powder?

Not a serious endorsement of anything real.  Just some rage.  I get awfully tired of the bullies getting away with everything because we have to be the better people.

Seraph… I completely feel ya.  I get the rage, I really do.

As I said upthread, on the day that Dr. Tiller was killed, I remember watching TV, and at some point, there is Randall Terry’s vile, despicable mug.  I felt a rage inside me.  I shouted at the TV, “I hope somebody blows your fucking brains out on live television, you goddamn fuckwad pile of shit!!!”

There is nothing, nothing, nothing wrong with feeling that intense feeling of rage at the despicable things those people do, and even more rage about how much they get away with.

It’s horrifically unjust, and makes me cry sometimes.

But for me, I cannot become like them.  I cannot truly wish for someone to kill Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.  I cannot embrace the belief that their vile tactics would do for us what it appears to do for them.  Because in truth… I don’t think it does shit for them.  Would you want to wake up everyday and live inside of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck’s head?  Would you want to go through life with that kind of internal self-loathing that gets spewed out all over everybody on a daily basis?

Beck and Limbaugh are very rich, very influential, and very despicable men.

And if I had to make an honest guess… they are also very, very, very unhappy and malcontented people.  They live miserable existences, and the only coping mechanism they have is to try to spread as much of that misery around as they can… because misery does indeed love company.

They are not to be envied.

They are to be pitied.  Because at their core, what they really are… is pitiful.

Comment #238: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  07:00 PM

Yes, Caton is so rational. Wishing actual harm or death on people who disagreed with hir on the internet. Oh but only indirectly.

What was that about implicit threats being unacceptable? Fuck you.

Comment #239: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  07:01 PM

Seriously, suggesting we violate laws because someone might get hurt is coming dangerously close to saying “You won’t about your stupid civil liberties when you’re DEAD! So THERE!”

Comment #240: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  07:04 PM

Er, “You won’t caare about” etc.

Comment #241: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  07:04 PM

Like DTG and Seraph, I have the rage. I get it. I know, it always feels like they win because they always get to do the shooting.

But that is not actually *winning*. Not in my universe. When Tiller was killed, yes, I spat something out about finding out where his murderer went to church. But then I signed up for even more volunteer hours at an abortion clinic. That is a bigger finger in the eye of a pro-lifer than any violence I could have committed. Trust me, they let me know every single week how angry it makes them that I am devoted to the cause of choice. How angry, and how impotent. And that’s how I want them—impotent.

Whereas if I shot someone—that just tells them I’m the murdering psycho they already think I am.

Comment #242: Well, what?  on  08/18  at  07:06 PM

But that is not actually *winning*. Not in my universe. When Tiller was killed, yes, I spat something out about finding out where his murderer went to church. But then I signed up for even more volunteer hours at an abortion clinic. That is a bigger finger in the eye of a pro-lifer than any violence I could have committed. Trust me, they let me know every single week how angry it makes them that I am devoted to the cause of choice. How angry, and how impotent. And that’s how I want them—impotent.

Correct me if I’m wrong - and I really hope I am - but isn’t there only one doctor left in the U.S. who performs abortions as late as Tiller did?  And isn’t he in his seventies?

Seems like, once he retires, they’ve won no matter what you do.  Alexander the Great’s solution to the Gordian Knot.

Comment #243: Seraph  on  08/18  at  07:10 PM

Ben D., how often does that come up in practice? (Not a rhetorical question—I’m honestly curious!) My friends who grew up in rural areas always described hunting, and being terrified of rabid animals, but never encountered psychos preying on folks out it the sticks.

There was a bizarre case here in California a couple of years ago where a guy broke into a house and attacked the kids there with a pitchfork.  I’m not sure they ever found out why since the cops had to shoot him.

Comment #244: Mnemosyne  on  08/18  at  07:14 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong - and I really hope I am - but isn’t there only one doctor left in the U.S. who performs abortions as late as Tiller did?  And isn’t he in his seventies?

I don’t know if he’s in his seventies (he doesn’t look quite that old), but I believe that you are thinking of Dr. Warren Hern, whose practice is in Boulder, Colorado.

Comment #245: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  07:15 PM

No I am not wishing harm on anyone, don’t have a hissy fit.

I am simply saying that someone is going to die at one of these events, and I really don’t want to die in order to prove you guys wrong.  Sorry!  So when it’s between me, and you guys supporting “the right to bring a gun to a political rally” (a position I vehemnently disagree with), I’d much rather it’s one of you .

That’s all.

I don’t wish anyone dead, least of all “people who disagree with me on the internet’.

God, the melodrama.  Should we call in Mr. De Mille for your closeups!

Comment #246: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  07:15 PM

Well, it won’t be “someone” who gets shot at one of these events, as someone asked above.  It’ll be many people.

The reason is that when someone fires (and someone is going to), the police are going to fire, and t here is going to be a fucking bloodbath in the crossfire.

Since I discovered today that “liberals” defend the “right” of people to carry firearms to a political event, I fear it’s going to come to that.

But I don’t think that when the shit goes down, there’s only going to be one fatality.

Again, since I attend, and even organize, participation in these events, I really really hope it’s not me.

I don’t want to die to prove asdf wrong, sorry.

Comment #247: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  07:18 PM

Whereas if I shot someone—that just tells them I’m the murdering psycho they already think I am.

An excellent point, Well what. This is an asymmetrical conflict in more ways that one.

Comment #248: atheist  on  08/18  at  07:18 PM

What an asshole you are.

Comment #249: asdf  on  08/18  at  07:18 PM

Caton, that is. Not atheist.

Comment #250: asdf  on  08/18  at  07:19 PM

Ben, we are not talking about reading their email!  We are talking about not allowing guns at political rallies.

God, how many false comparisons do we have to here?

Comment #251: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  07:21 PM

Does “In Cold Blood” ring a bell?

I wasn’t saying it never happens at all; I was curious about the frequency.

Guns are very frightening when openly carried by political opponents into political meetings. That doesn’t strike me as particularly irrational—particularly in the face of several recent acts of domestic terrorism by right-wing extremists. This discussion isn’t focusing on gun control in general, it’s focusing on the misuse of open carry laws for political intimidation.

I agree that the law in Arizona allows open carry, and that it would have been improper to arrest the people in question. I also think that law must be modified to disallow intimidation, if we’re going to retain any semblance of civil debate in this country.

Comment #252: Llelldorin  on  08/18  at  07:23 PM

It is sad, yet somehow fitting, that threads about gun violence often turn bloody. Maybe its because we’re not talking about stuff that seems so grim, so life-and-death.

Comment #253: atheist  on  08/18  at  07:23 PM

I know.  I’m an asshole because I could not disagree more with allowing people to bring guns to a political rally, and I don’t want to die to prove how stupid you are for arguing this position.

I have no problem with being an asshole.

But I’m still not in any hurry to get a bullet in my head at the next townhall meeting I attend just so someone else can say “see i told you so” to you or any of the other defenders of invented rights here.

Sorry asdf!  I like life too much!  But, hey, you are free to attend as many townhall meetings as you like in open-carry states.

You’re doing that, right?  Right?

Comment #254: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  07:23 PM

I know.  I’m an asshole because I could not disagree more with allowing people to bring guns to a political rally, and I don’t want to die to prove how stupid you are for arguing this position.

Not only are you an asshole for wishing death on another person and then pulling a Glenn Beck and pretending you said no such thing, you’re an asshole for repeatedly lying about my position.

Comment #255: asdf  on  08/18  at  07:27 PM

Caton:

Jesus-H-Christ-on-a-pogo stick.

We understand that you are OUTRAGED.
We agree with you that they are a bunch of tiny-penis Republotards
We pointed out, however, that what they were doing was legal.
We explained, patiently, that they were trolling for a reaction; which they didn’t get.
We advanced the point, politely, that we can’t arrest people if they haven’t broken the law.
We noted, with exquisite logic, that we liberals don’t and can’t act like fascists or, we lose.

What do we get from you?  Somebody is going to get shot in the ass.  In fact lots of people are going. to get shot.  Why? ‘Cause, well, I think so and I believe it.  Way to muster the old rationality.

What is it, precisely that you want THEM to do?  Appoint you High-Goddess-Over-Protest-Appropriateness?  Stop breathing hard and come up with something rational or STFU.

Comment #256: Magis  on  08/18  at  07:31 PM

Just asking, Ben - have you considered what your reaction will be if (as seems all too possible) someone gets shot at one of these events?

Just asking, since you oppose the PATRIOT ACT, what will your reaction be if there’s a terrorist attack?

Ben, I’m not arguing for removing the right to bear weapons (here - that’s a whole other argument).  I’m arguing for *restricting the interaction* of people who choose to bear arms *to specific events*.  It’s like comparing the PATRIOT ACT to laws which allow the authorities to forbid carrying cameras into sensitive areas,.

Seriously, suggesting we violate laws because someone might get hurt

Gee, Ben, you don’t seem to be addressing the point that, apparently, “free speech zones” didn’t violate the law.  You and I may agree that they are unethical, but apparently they didn’t violate the law.

Do you intend to show that “free speech zones” violated the law, Ben?  Do you intend to show that hypothetical “second amendment zones” would violate the law, Ben?

Comment #257: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  07:32 PM

asdf I am not lying about your position.  You have defended “the rights’ of people to bring guns to rallies throughout this thread.  And I don’t wish you dead at all, I’m sorry if I wrote that in a bad way, and I probably did.  Let me more clear:  I’d much rather you got shot than me, since you support these lunatic’s “rights’ to bring guns to political rallies.

Much rather.  It’s like, multitudes preferred.  Please don’t let it be me, it’s much better if it’s you.  This assumes that it has to be one of us.  Personally, I believe that it will happen to someone, but probably not to me, and almost definitely not to you since I suspect you talk a lot of shit on the interne,t but you don’t actually you know, go to any of these rallies.  But whatever.  If you do go, I apologize.  And then maybe it will be you!  LOL

Magnus, already done darlin.

1) Let’s stop pretending that it’s anyone’s “right” to bear arms at a political rally.  Rachel Maddow agrees with this position, and I’m sure she’s very populat here, but for some reason I have been demonzied for this position. Well, it is true that as asdf has pointed out, I am an “asshole”.  I certainly do not have Rachel’s personality.  So there is that.

2)  The SS should expand their perimeter, I’d like to see them begin by doubling it.

3)  Let rationale and reasonable people prevail here - a sign reading “It’s time to water the tree of liberty” held by an armed man at an Obama event IS A THREAT.  We all know it.  Bring him in for questioning.

Comment #258: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  07:39 PM

Liar, Caton. Quote me.

Comment #259: asdf  on  08/18  at  07:41 PM

AGain, I think it’s important to p;oint out that what we have here are LIBERALS defending people’s “right” to carry loaded guns to political events.

That’s something shocking to me, and I didn’t know it before today.

It goes a long way to explaining why we have so many dead every year in this country from gunshots.

And what do they respond with?  FUcking melodrama about whether I “wished” them dead.  Who gives a fuck?  Can a wish kill you?  No.

But a gun can.  And that is what you are defending.

In no uncertain terms:  there is NO excuse for allowing people to carry loaded weapons to political events.  I find this position to be diseased. 

and now asfd, if I may return the favor:  Go fuck yourself.

Comment #260: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  07:44 PM

I hope it’s a “liberal” who is defending bringing loaded guns to political events as “perfectly legal” even with the caveat that they find it really “unfortunate”.

Caton, please find us the law that says it’s illegal to bring guns to a political rally in Arizona.  Seriously.  You can’t rampage around claiming something is illegal without having an actual law to back you up.

Just because you want something to be illegal doesn’t mean it actually is illegal.  As multiple people have told you and as you keep ignoring it is legal to openly carry a gun in public in Arizona.  They have a law that says so.  You’re basically demanding that the Secret Service ignore Arizona state law and arrest people for doing things that are not illegal.

If teabaggers here in California tried bringing their guns to a rally, they would be arrested.  Why?  Because in this state, it is against the law to carry a gun in public.  So it’s not going to happen.

As others have said, the teabaggers are yanking your chain by doing something that’s perfectly legal in their state and making you think they could do the same thing without penalty in your state even if your state laws say they can’t.  You’ll notice that no one in a state that doesn’t have these carry laws has tried it.  That’s because they know their ass would be arrested because, in their state, it’s illegal to do so, and then they couldn’t have their little righteous rant about how they were doing something legal and got arrested for it.

Comment #261: Mnemosyne  on  08/18  at  07:45 PM

I’m concerned about being assaulted by groups of straight white men, based on my past experience of being assaulted by groups of straight white men, for being gay. I am determined that it will not happen again. I do not expect that I would ever have to do more than display my gun to deter them. But if the worst happens, I do not want to be worrying about how my next bullet gets into the chamber.

I can definitely sympathize, but can I interest you in some martial arts training instead? Rapid fire chop socky-ing a couple of these assholes to the pavement seems like it could be equally effective, and more satisfying. The use of guns in uncontrolled situations is dangerous to the user in so many ways it’s scary.

Comment #262: tb  on  08/18  at  07:46 PM

Caton:

Darlin squared,

I utterly love and adore Rachel, but she ain’t a lawyer, see?  In many states you can wear unconcealed arms to a baby shower or political ralley or whatever.  Arrest them for what?  You can’t haul someone in for questioning concerning a crime that doesn’t exist.  I defy you to show me an Arizona statute they broke.  Quote it chapter and verse, I dare you.  I triple-dog dare you.

How can you double the perimeter with the same number of agents without fatally weakening the central protection.  Who gets to decide what “rational and reasonable” are.  You?  For somebody that likes Rachel that much you sould more than a bit fascist to me.

Comment #263: Magis  on  08/18  at  07:48 PM

Liar, liar, liar, Caton.

Comment #264: asdf  on  08/18  at  07:50 PM

I am simply saying that someone is going to die at one of these events, and I really don’t want to die in order to prove you guys wrong.

Is it legal to carry a gun in public in your state the way it is in Arizona?  If not, it will not happen to you.  If your state does not allow people to carry guns in public, they will be arrested before they get anywhere near you.

Again, these guys are yanking your chain by doing something that’s legal in their own state that they know they would be arrested for doing in your state.  And it worked.  You’re now terrified that these same guys are going to show up at your rally even if open carry is illegal in your state.

I don’t know how many more ways we can repeat this:  If your state does not allow open carry, you will not have people carrying guns at your rally.  They will be stopped by police and arrested because what they are doing is against the law in your state.

Comment #265: Mnemosyne  on  08/18  at  07:53 PM

Arrest them for what? 

OM fucking God.  AGAIN:

3) Let rationale and reasonable people prevail here - a sign reading “It’s time to water the tree of liberty” held by an armed man at an Obama event IS A THREAT.  We all know it.  Bring him in for questioning.

I advocated for only one arrest.  Did you know that threatening the life of the President is ALREADY AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW?

I am stating that reasonable should be able to agree that the above constitutes a threat against the president’s life.  How many times do I have to type this?

what is wrong with you people?  Fucking learn to read or stop expecting me to keep up a polite facade.

Rachel had a former SS agent on last night and he went into detail about what the SS can and cannot do. i have not advocated anything that he did not say, and I thought he made a lot sense.  Go watch it if you want to know more.

Only in America would you be called a “facist” for not agreeing that people can attend political rallies armed.  Jesus Christ.

Comment #266: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  07:55 PM

I can definitely sympathize, but can I interest you in some martial arts training instead?

In addition, perhaps, but not instead. I am not very physically strong. I have fought back, but I can’t even handle one person my size. There’s just no way that I’ll ever be able to take on several.

The point of the gun is to deter confrontation. I do not expect to ever have to pull the trigger.

Comment #267: asdf  on  08/18  at  07:56 PM

Mnemosyne I do understand what you are saying, and I hope that you are right.  I live in NY and no, we cannot do that here.  We’re rational!  Yeah for NY!

But…I believe that the general acceptance of this is contributing to an atmosphere of escalating violence. So we will see if your prediction holds true.  I hope it does.  Even so, I am still concerned about people attending these events in open-carry states, and I am still concerned about the lives of the President and of Democratic congresspeople in those states.  And also, of bystanders.

Comment #268: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  07:58 PM

asdf, are you now saying that you do NOT support the right of people to bring guns to political events?  You do not believe that any such “right” exists?  Please be clear, if that is the case I will certainly apologize.  But state it out right.

Comment #269: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  08:00 PM

3) Let rationale and reasonable people prevail here - a sign reading “It’s time to water the tree of liberty” held by an armed man at an Obama event IS A THREAT.  We all know it.  Bring him in for questioning.

You play the role of prosecuting attorney.

How, precisely, is a sign that reads “It is time to water the tree of liberty” a threat?  What is the specific threat being made?

Tell me, counselor… how are you gonna get a conviction on that garbage?

What is the charge?
Who precisely is being threatened?
What is he threatening to do?
What violent criminal act is he stating he intends to commit?


This in’t about whether or not Mr. Kostrick is rightwing douchebag.  We agree… he’s a rightwing douchebag.  This is about whether or not you have reasonable cause to arrest him.

I want to know what you are gonna do to ensure that Mr. Kostrick doesn’t sue you into bankruptcy for false arrest if you are the arresting officer?

You need to explicitly define the exact nature of the threat being made by that poster, and if you can’t do that, I suggest that you never try to get a job in law enforcement, either as a police officer or as a prosecutor.

Because you would fail, miserably.

Comment #270: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  08:10 PM

Even so, I am still concerned about people attending these events in open-carry states, and I am still concerned about the lives of the President and of Democratic congresspeople in those states.  And also, of bystanders.

I’m not saying you’re wrong to be concerned.  It is possible that some loser in a different state with different laws will try to do the same thing and go berserk when he’s not allowed to.  However, I’m pretty confident that the police in states that don’t have open carry laws like Arizona’s and New Hampshire’s will be correctly arresting people who show up with guns.  I’ll say this about the police—for all their faults, they don’t like anyone having a weapon but them.

This is basically the wingnut equivalent of when your brother would stand two inches away from your face and say, “But I’m not touching you!  What are you going to do, because I’m not touching you!” to try and goad you into shoving him away so you would be the one to get in trouble.  It didn’t work because the Secret Service didn’t react the way they hoped, and now they look like total losers.

Comment #271: Mnemosyne  on  08/18  at  08:12 PM

DTG, we all know it’s a reference to Jefferson’s famous quote about tyrants.  I think we all know that in the context it was displayed, it was a threat to the President.

They can bring him in for questioning.  I did not say they would get a conviction.  But they can get him out of there.  And I am advocating that they should.  I believe it is completely reasonable and rational, and I believe you know it was meant as a threat and you are just trying to be contrary now because you are in deep and married to your position.

Comment #272: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  08:15 PM

Gee, Ben, you don’t seem to be addressing the point that, apparently, “free speech zones” didn’t violate the law.

They did violate the law. Just because the Bush DOJ said they didn’t doesn’t mean they did. Christ, according to your logic, we can waterboard suspected right wing extremists because Bush said it was legal. I want the person I elect and my party to follow a higher standard than that.

Comment #273: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  08:16 PM

Also, they already restrict firearmsin a 600m parameter around the President and in the venue he is speaking in. It is also illegal to carry guns in schools (where a lot of these town halls are being held). 

But restricting open carry outdoors on public property would be a violation of the law of Arizona. I don’t believe in violating laws to make people “safe”.

Comment #274: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  08:19 PM

Ben if I am not mistaken, Clinton had those free speech zones too.  They were much like everything else under Bush:  Taken to new heights of absurdity.  Like Presidential signing statements and even rendition; Clinton started it.

What is your case for them being illegal?

Comment #275: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  08:19 PM

What is your case for them being illegal?

They violate the First Amendment.

Like Presidential signing statements and even rendition; Clinton started it.

Signing statements used to be something Presidents would reasonably use for legal technicalities. IIRC Clinton used them something like two times. There’s no comparison to how Bush used them.

I remember in the ‘90s a woman walked up to Clinton when he was taking a walk on the beach during his vacation and started yelling at him and accosting him. The Secret Service calmly moved her aside. No “free speech zone”, no tasering, no beat down.

Comment #276: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  08:22 PM

I’m generally pretty extreme on the Bill of Rights and civil liberties, though. Just FYI.

Comment #277: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  08:24 PM

They violate the first amendment in your opinion, but no court has ruled that they do, right?  Courts have ruled that the government is permitted to regulate the time and place of free expression.  Considering this, I don’t think you can establish that they’re illegal.

I don’t doubt that what you describe happened during the Clinton years, but I remember reading that free speech zones were utilized during his adminstration anyway.

In any case, Bush definitely did not invent them.  That’s not to say he didn’t abuse them.

Comment #278: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  08:27 PM

Well, ftr, I do think that free speech zones SHOULD be illegal.  But I think that the poster who stated that they aren’t, is correct.

Comment #279: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  08:29 PM

Sorry, Clinton used signing statements more than that, but they weren’t used the way Bush used them. There were actual statements, comments or proclamations on the bill, not a blanket immunity from the law Congress just passed. HUGE fucking difference.

Comment #280: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  08:29 PM

And James Monroe was the first President to use them. Nobody used them like Bush did though, not even when we were in the middle of a Civil War!

Comment #281: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  08:30 PM

asdf, are you now saying that you do NOT support the right of people to bring guns to political events?  You do not believe that any such “right” exists?  Please be clear, if that is the case I will certainly apologize.  But state it out right.

I don’t jump through hoops for you, Caton. Either quote me, or apologize for lying about me. None of this “have you stopped beating your communist boyfriend yet?”

Comment #282: asdf  on  08/18  at  08:31 PM

They did violate the law. Just because the Bush DOJ said they didn’t doesn’t mean they did.

Did anyone sue?  How did that go?  Did any judge say “there are problems with these”?

Christ, according to your logic, we can waterboard suspected right wing extremists because Bush said it was legal.

Except for the bit where people have taken their objections to court…

I want the person I elect and my party to follow a higher standard than that.

I see.  So you don’t see any difference between a t-shirt slogan and a loaded gun as a political statement?

Comment #283: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  08:34 PM

DTG, we all know it’s a reference to Jefferson’s famous quote about tyrants.  I think we all know that in the context it was displayed, it was a threat to the President.

Oh, we all know that, do we?

Why is that?  Because some guy who wore a t-shirt that referenced the same quote by Thomas Jefferson was a mass murderer, anyone with conservative views who references that quote in a sign while protesting the POTUS must therefore be making a threat against the President of the United States?

Seriously?

I object, your honor.  Conjecture.

Sustained.  You will strike the counselor’s last statement from the record.

Tim McVeigh was also driving a yellow 1977 Mercury Marquis at the time of his arrest.  Should we expect the authorities at presidential events to go rounding up all people wearing Ron Paul t-shirts who show up to Obama events in a ‘77 Marquis, as well?

Comment #284: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  08:35 PM

No, because Obama is often referred to as a tyrant or dicator by these people, as I’m sure you know.

Yes, they should have brought him in for questioning, whether or not he ended up getting jail time.  (He probably would not).  It would have removed him.

For an example, they absolutely did bring the guy holding the sign stating “death to obama and michelle and her two stupid kids” in for questioning.  You absolutely can parse that and say it’s not a threat, it’s a wish or whatever.  But they removed him anyway.

I want to see them remove more of these assholes IF they are armed and carrying a sign which reasonable people can construe as a death threat against the president.

I am not saying those removed will end up doing time. The guy with the sign who was removed isn’t going to do any, if I am not mistaken.  So?

Comment #285: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  08:39 PM

I see.  So you don’t see any difference between a t-shirt slogan and a loaded gun as a political statement?

On public property, outside the venue where the event is taking place, and within the bounds of state law? No, there’s no legal difference between a t-shirt and a openly carrying a gun. Sorry.

Does it make the guy doing it an asshole? Yeah. But being an asshole isn’t illegal. It’s just not.

Comment #286: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  08:39 PM

So stating your stance is jumping through hoops?

LOL.

Yeah, sure.

Comment #287: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  08:40 PM

Do you really think, after all, that someone planning violence at the area outside the venue would just say “gee, they said no guns allowed! Guess I can’t shoot anybody!” Get fucking real. They wouldn’t do open carry, either.

Comment #288: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  08:40 PM

Sexist bigot jumpinjim, get your own reading comprehension. Amanda’s point was that anxiety about their masculinity drives some men to obsess over guns, not to simply buy guns, and regardless of actual dick size.

I wonder what you obsess over that drives your transphobia? But putting that aside, someone transitioning their gender to female does not have that sort of anxiety about being insufficiently masculine.

Little girls will play with toy guns if you give them as gifts. Little girls will be interested in real guns if you teach them gun safety and take them to the shooting range as a family event. You aren’t talking about anything innate. You’re talking about arbitrary socially-constructed gender roles.

Comment #289: asdf  on  08/18  at  08:42 PM

Liar Caton, I’ve stated what I believe throughout this thread. How about you quote me.

Comment #290: asdf  on  08/18  at  08:44 PM

I don’t owe you an explanation on your conditions. You owe me an apology outright and upfront for lying.

Comment #291: asdf  on  08/18  at  08:44 PM

Yeah, you are pretty extreme alright Ben.

I can only state again that I find your position on this one to be wrong, irrational, and diseased.

It’s a crock of self-righteous bullshit to claim that a tshirt is the same thing as a loaded gun, and excuse your position as being “an extremist on the bill of rights”.

But we’re not going to get anywhere here.

It’s just a round-robin at this point. 

I could not disagree with you more.  I hope no one ends up dying for your righteousness, but i suspect someone will.  I hope it’s not me, even if I am an asshole. 

I did learn alot on this thread today though.  I really would not have guessed that liberals would defend this shit.  Maybe because I live in NY, I just don’t know liberals like that.  So this was life lesson anyway.

Comment #292: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  08:45 PM

asdf you are really pretty cowardly if you won’t come out and state that you do or do not support the “right” of people to carry weapons to political events.  It was obvious to me from your posts that you were defending them, if you weren’t, you’d state so, but you can’t because you support them.

You’re incredibly dishonest.  I would never refuse to state my postion and act like the little fucking worm you are acting like. 

Apology?  Yeah, right.  Hold your breath, okay?

Comment #293: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  08:47 PM

It was obvious to me from your posts that you were defending them,

Then quote me, liar.

You don’t get to put words in my mouth and then demand that I repudiate them.

I will not dignify your lies with a response of substance. It is beneath me to respond to HUAC tactics.

Comment #294: asdf  on  08/18  at  08:53 PM

Gracchus @ #12:

Note especially the graphic on pages 14-15: nerdy white suburban dude sits on his roof, protecting wife and son from shadowy approaching torch-bearing figures by brandishing his shotgun (the stock of which, of course, is seated in his crotch)

The thing that gets me about that image is that the shadowy figures don’t have guns.

In the scenario that I play out in my imagination, said dude is lying on the roof, bleeding to death, and his last thought is “Why oh WHY did I support an organization that allowed the multitudes who would do me harm to be able to arm themselves to the teeth?”

Comment #295: Big Picture Pathologist  on  08/18  at  09:00 PM

It is interesting that a supposed liberal would declare that you indeed have no right to protest in view of Bush’s limousine.

Comment #296: asdf  on  08/18  at  09:03 PM

They already have a gun-free zone in a 600m parameter around the President.

That was just an educated guess on my part, by the way. Based on the effective range of most non-sniper rifles and the relative ease of keeping less than 1sqm clear of unauthorised loaded firearms.

Comment #297: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  09:06 PM

The point of the gun is to deter confrontation. I do not expect to ever have to pull the trigger.

No, no, no, no, NO! If you point a firearm at someone, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger and take the consequences of that action. You never bluff with a gun.

Comment #298: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  09:07 PM

There is a lot of belief here that small dicks cause gun ownership. My question is: What do large cunts cause?

An easy birth for you, I’d guess.

Comment #299: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  09:08 PM

Since I discovered today that “liberals” defend the “right” of people to carry firearms to a political event, I fear it’s going to come to that.

You’re confusing the defence of what you and I (and asdf, and most everyone else here) consider an abberant behaviour that’s legal with a basic observation of its legality and currently tested Constitutionality. Liberals are big fans of legality and the Constitution, even if they sometimes allow for speech or actions we don’t like—that’s why so many of us are card-carrying members of the ACLU.

The fact is, as with the RNC banning anti-Bush t-shirts, the organisers of Obamacare town halls in jurisdictions where open carry is legal could also ban firearms inside the venue. And like the RNC, they could enforce it first with private security and then, if someone’s particularly resistant, with the cops. It’s when you take the ban into the commons, where free speech or open-carry is legal, that you end up on shaky Constitutional ground.

Back inside the venue, taking that course is obviously a lot more justified when it comes to firearms as opposed to t-shirts and signs and other speech, but that’s up to the organisers of the event as well as local law.

Comment #300: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  09:11 PM

The thing that gets me about that image is that the shadowy figures don’t have guns.

I didn’t notice that—yet another creepy aspect to a repulsive document.

They’re probably thinking “slave uprising,” just like they worried about back in the good old plantation days.

Comment #301: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  09:15 PM

They’re probably thinking “slave uprising,” just like they worried about back in the good old plantation days.

Bingo. If these fuckers ever got total control of government they’d probably pass a law disarming blacks, or at least “illegals” faster than the blink of an eye.

Comment #302: Ben D.  on  08/18  at  09:17 PM

No, no, no, no, NO! If you point a firearm at someone, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger and take the consequences of that action. You never bluff with a gun.

Yes. It’s one of the four basic rules of firearm safety. Note I said “show” the gun, not point it. I do expect that showing it will be enough. But I’m not bluffing. If I have to defend myself, I am ready to point it and mean it.

Comment #303: asdf  on  08/18  at  09:19 PM

No, because Obama is often referred to as a tyrant or dicator by these people, as I’m sure you know.

Yes, they should have brought him in for questioning, whether or not he ended up getting jail time.  (He probably would not).  It would have removed him.

For an example, they absolutely did bring the guy holding the sign stating “death to obama and michelle and her two stupid kids” in for questioning.  You absolutely can parse that and say it’s not a threat, it’s a wish or whatever.  But they removed him anyway.

I want to see them remove more of these assholes IF they are armed and carrying a sign which reasonable people can construe as a death threat against the president.

I am not saying those removed will end up doing time. The guy with the sign who was removed isn’t going to do any, if I am not mistaken.  So?

OK, Caton.  Let’s go to fantasyland where you would have gotten your way, and Mr. Kostrick gets arrested and taken in for questioning.

Guess what happens next?  His lawyer shows up and tells the authorities that if they don’t release his client immediately, that Mr. Kostrick will be filing a massive civil suit against them.

Realizing that they have absolutely no chance of convicting him of any crime whatsoever, they release Mr. Kostrick, to avoid possible litigation.

And then the media tour begins…

“Citizen Arrested for quoting Thomas Jefferson at Obama town hall”
“Obama security detail tramples all over private citizen’s Constitutional rights”
“Strange Bedfellows: ACLU ponders suit against White House on behalf of private NH citizen”

Yup.  That would be so much better of an outcome.

You’ve just made William Kostrick a celebrity and a darling to the right, and made the Obama White House look like a bunch of militant third world goons who will use force to silence private citizens in the opposition.

Brilliant.

Comment #304: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  09:21 PM

Bingo. If these fuckers ever got total control of government they’d probably pass a law disarming blacks, or at least “illegals” faster than the blink of an eye.

Yep, they have a whole section in that same pamphlet devoted to “illegal immigrant gangs”—the people portrayed in that illustration wouldn’t pass the paper bag test.

And, apropos your earlier comment on Da Joooos being the common focus of a wide variety of extremist nutbars, the NRA pamphlet gives George Soros (who everyone knows is the current CEO of the Elders of Zion) a full-page, portraying him as the warty, money-obsessed Hebrew familiar to students of early 20th century European history.

It’s really an extraordinary document that shows the true face of the NRA.

Comment #305: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  09:26 PM

DTG - oh you mean like what happened after they removed the guy for holding the “death to obama” sign??

Oh right, none of that happened, you are just jerking off now.

Comment #306: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  09:27 PM

Yes. It’s one of the four basic rules of firearm safety. Note I said “show” the gun, not point it. I do expect that showing it will be enough. But I’m not bluffing. If I have to defend myself, I am ready to point it and mean it.

Ok, I didn’t see the part a few comments back when you specified “display.” You’ll understand why anyone who takes firearms seriously (more seriously even than rampaging torch-bearing illegal immigrant gangs and Elders of Zion) would be touchy about that.

Comment #307: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  09:31 PM

“You’re confusing the defence of what you and I (and asdf, and most everyone else here) consider an abberant behaviour that’s legal with a basic observation of its legality and currently tested Constitutionality. Liberals are big fans of legality and the Constitution, even if they sometimes allow for speech or actions we don’t like—that’s why so many of us are card-carrying members of the ACLU. “

No I’m not.  I’ve outlined actions that can be taken, WITHIN THE LAW, to curtail this behavior, and DTG has written a play in response, and asfd has had some sort of a hissy fit and began babbling about communist boyfriends.

In fact, there is nothing ill- or extra-legal about anything I have proposed.

You guys are defending this because you want to.  Because it’s a liberal trait (but in some liberals, by no means all.  maybe a majority of us though), to get all warm and fuzzy when they either attack one of their own (elected democrats really get off on that one) or step up to “defend” a righty even if you don’t agree with them. It just feels good to a lot of liberals.

But it doesn’t feel good to me.  Rationality feels good to me.

Loaded guns don’t belong at poltical events.  We have a long history of political violence in this country, and a recent history of right wing violence.  People are going to die if this keeps up.  They will never be appeased.  They’re not going to say “oh, they let us bring our guns here, so let’s stop at that”.  Oh no.  They will continue to escalate.  Watch.

Comment #308: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  09:33 PM

Of course, Gracchus. Best to be safe and bring that up if there’s any doubt.

Comment #309: asdf  on  08/18  at  09:36 PM

Guess what happens next?  His lawyer shows up and tells the authorities that if they don’t release his client immediately, that Mr. Kostrick will be filing a massive civil suit against them

And when the Secret Service cite the Brett Bursey case?

Comment #310: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  09:36 PM

I forgot that asdf said he was gay.  My use of the phrase “hissy fit” can be considered inappropriate and some sort of slur because of that.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and I’ll stop using that phrase.  I really totally forgot because I totally dont’ give a shit.  Sorry.

Comment #311: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  09:37 PM

Yes, they should have brought him in for questioning, whether or not he ended up getting jail time.  (He probably would not).

You just shot yourself in the foot there, so to speak. The police can’t forcibly detain someone like that unless they have reason to believe a crime has been committed. If they think their questioning probably can’t lead to any charges being filed against anyone, then the best they can do is ask him nicely to come downtown and have a chat.

Comment #312: asdf  on  08/18  at  09:39 PM

I forgot that asdf said he was gay.  My use of the phrase “hissy fit” can be considered inappropriate and some sort of slur because of that.  Nothing could be further from the truth, and I’ll stop using that phrase.  I really totally forgot because I totally dont’ give a shit.  Sorry.

Nah, it’s cool. I didn’t think you meant anything like that.

It’d be great if you put up or shut up, though. Quote me or stop lying.

Comment #313: asdf  on  08/18  at  09:41 PM

No I’m not.  I’ve outlined actions that can be taken, WITHIN THE LAW, to curtail this behavior

And those actions by the Secret Service have a firm doctrinal basis in time and space, mainly the perimeter/defence-in-depth approach they use. Break their rules, you break Federal law.

Outside those boundaries, you’re in the jurisdiction of the local and state law. In the case of Arizona, we are observing (not defending, observing) that open-carry of all personal firearms is legal. Apparently the Secret Service judged that this particular moron didn’t stray into their jurisdiction—at least not to the point where they could arrest him.

But it doesn’t feel good to me.  Rationality feels good to me

I don’t care what feels good or rational to you or any other individual in this context. I care about what the law considers good and rational. If a particular law enshrines something I consider bad and irrational, I’m going to use the Constitution (which sets the standard for good and rational) to argue against it if I can. If I can’t, I’m S.O.L. That’s how the republic was intended to work: “rule of law, not men.”

Loaded guns don’t belong at poltical events.

No-one here is arguing otherwise. BUt it’s a matter of tradition and custom, not the law. Federal law and related S.O.P. addresses the history of political assassinations. Even in an open-carry conservative state like Arizona, most people didn’t arrive at this town hall event with pistols of their own, and viewed this AR-15 guy as what he is: a freak.

Comment #314: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  09:49 PM

If the guy with the threatening sign doesn’t stray into the wrong perimeter carrying stuff that’ll trigger it (mainly a weapon), the most the Secret Service can do is take his photo and see if the local cops can put a name, place and people to it. And have no doubt, that telephoto lens won’t be the only optical device trained on his stupid face while he’s hanging about the venue.

Comment #315: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  09:56 PM

DTG - oh you mean like what happened after they removed the guy for holding the “death to obama” sign??

Oh right, none of that happened, you are just jerking off now.

“Death to Obama” = very clear, explicit, unambiguous allusion directly suggesting a threat to the life of the president.

“It’s time to water the tree of liberty” = obscure reference to a quote by the Third President of the United States, which contains no inherent meaning which suggests a threat to the president’s life.

This really isn’t very difficult.

And you have a serious fucking attitude problem.

Comment #316: DTG in STL  on  08/18  at  09:58 PM

I have an attitude problem in response to your continuous mocking of every post I have made on this thread DTG.

It’s in response to YOUR attitude problem.

Now, back to what I said originally - the fact is that the guy who had the Death to Obama sign is not going to serve time.  And it can be argued that this sign was a wish or a hope, not a threat.  Reasonable people said it’s a threat.  My belief is that a man with a loaded gun, at a rally containing people who have repeatedly called Obama a tyrant and a dictator, holding the sign “it’s time to water the tree of liberty” (with the blood of tyrants and dictators), can also be presumed a threat by reasonable people.

You have decided to mock me, and put up posts filled with ridiculous things that i never said, post after post, because you sensed blood in the water and thought this was a gang bang.  And now you want an “amen brother!” from the couple of other people who are pissed at my position on this thread.  But I don’t care.  I wasn’t crying about your attitude problem, and wouldn’t have even mentioned it until you decided to bring up my response to your unadultrated bullshit towards me on this thread.

check your mirror DTG.

Comment #317: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  10:09 PM

“It’s time to water the tree of liberty” = obscure reference to a quote by the Third President of the United States, which contains no inherent meaning which suggests a threat to the president’s life.

It’s an interesting question of ambiguity in the face of common knowledge. The Secret Service understands exactly what that sign means—any sign or utterance indirectly referencing tyrants or irregular transfers of power in their widest perimeter sets off serious alarms with them.

Most modern Americans who serve on juries, however, can be convinced to look at the Jefferson quote in exactly the way you describe. The Secret Service apparently chooses to keep tabs on those who utter sneaky and cowardly threats instead of arresting them.

Comment #318: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  10:13 PM

“And have no doubt, that telephoto lens won’t be the only optical device trained on his stupid face while he’s hanging about the venue. “

Well, I disagree with your other conclusions, but hopefully you are right about this.  I suspect we’ll find out before this is all over.  The guy who staged the interview with one of the guntoters has just been revealed by tpm to be tied ot a 90’s group which had members sent to prison because they were planning bombings of federal buildings.

So again, all I can say is that this will escalate.

And I’m really tired of the round robin.  My positon has not changed nor has anyone arguing against me.  And neither of us will change our positions.

Comment #319: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  10:13 PM

“It’s time to water the tree of liberty” = obscure reference to a quote by the Third President of the United States, which contains no inherent meaning which suggests a threat to the president’s life.

Oh, brother - I’m not an American and I can tell you the next five words oh-so-carefully left unsaid with that quote…

Comment #320: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  08/18  at  10:28 PM

DTG wrote - Oh, we all know that, do we?

Why is that?  Because some guy who wore a t-shirt that referenced the same quote by Thomas Jefferson was a mass murderer, anyone with conservative views who references that quote in a sign while protesting the POTUS must therefore be making a threat against the President of the United States?

Seriously?

I object, your honor.  Conjecture.

Sustained.  You will strike the counselor’s last statement from the record.

Tim McVeigh was also driving a yellow 1977 Mercury Marquis at the time of his arrest.  Should we expect the authorities at presidential events to go rounding up all people wearing Ron Paul t-shirts who show up to Obama events in a ‘77 Marquis, as well?

No, because Obama is often referred to as a tyrant or dicator by these people, as I’m sure you know.

Yes, they should have brought him in for questioning, whether or not he ended up getting jail time.  (He probably would not).  It would have removed him.

For an example, they absolutely did bring the guy holding the sign stating “death to obama and michelle and her two stupid kids” in for questioning.  You absolutely can parse that and say it’s not a threat, it’s a wish or whatever.  But they removed him anyway.

I want to see them remove more of these assholes IF they are armed and carrying a sign which reasonable people can construe as a death threat against the president.

I am not saying those removed will end up doing time. The guy with the sign who was removed isn’t going to do any, if I am not mistaken.  So?

 

OK, Caton.  Let’s go to fantasyland where you would have gotten your way, and Mr. Kostrick gets arrested and taken in for questioning.

Guess what happens next?  His lawyer shows up and tells the authorities that if they don’t release his client immediately, that Mr. Kostrick will be filing a massive civil suit against them.

Realizing that they have absolutely no chance of convicting him of any crime whatsoever, they release Mr. Kostrick, to avoid possible litigation.

And then the media tour begins…

“Citizen Arrested for quoting Thomas Jefferson at Obama town hall”
“Obama security detail tramples all over private citizen’s Constitutional rights”
“Strange Bedfellows: ACLU ponders suit against White House on behalf of private NH citizen”

Yup.  That would be so much better of an outcome.

You’ve just made William Kostrick a celebrity and a darling to the right, and made the Obama White House look like a bunch of militant third world goons who will use force to silence private citizens in the opposition.

Brilliant.

I’m the one with the attitude problem huh DTG?  Does everyone you mock and pull an attitude with ahve to get down and lick your ass in response?

You like to dish out the attitude and you have been doing that the entire time on this thread, ever since I got into it with asfd.  You either sensed a gang bang, and that makes you pathetic, or you walk around believing that you can treat people like shit and they should lick your ass in return.

fuck you asshole.

Comment #321: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  10:29 PM

So again, all I can say is that this will escalate.

I understand that it will escalate. But not making martyrs out of punters is a sound tactic when it comes to slowing that escalation. So is not demanding the suspension of local law outside their jurisdiction. The Secret Service has been at this business for over 100 years, and they understand the value of preserving rule of law, even when the law makes their job more difficult.

Your concern seems to be more about gunfire in the crowd outside the Secret Service perimeter, which is also legitimate. Advocating more firearms on both sides in that kind of situation is obviously a bad move, but there’s not much that can be done in an open-carry state like Arizona.

Comment #322: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  10:30 PM

Oh, brother - I’m not an American and I can tell you the next five words oh-so-carefully left unsaid with that quote…

Sad to say, it’s probably because you’re not an American that you’re able to do that.

Comment #323: Gracchus.  on  08/18  at  10:32 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/08/14/DI2009081402554.html

That’s a link to an engrossing discussion Rick Perlstein, author of the riveting “Nixonland” had today at the wapo.

It’s worth reading for anyone really interested in health care, and also, the effects threats of violence have on Democracy.

Comment #324: Lady Vader  on  08/18  at  10:54 PM

So, Caton, here’s what the USSS had to say.  Not a former agent, Obama’s guy:

U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, “Of course not.”

The individuals would never have gotten close to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he 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. iReport.com: Gun rights and health care

In both instances, the men carrying weapons were outside the venues where Obama was speaking.
“We pay attention to this obviously ... to someone with a firearm when they open carry even when they are within state law,” Donovan said. “We work with our law enforcement counterparts to make sure laws and regulations in their states are enforced.

Capisce?

Comment #325: Magis  on  08/18  at  11:07 PM

Sad to say, it’s probably because you’re not an American that you’re able to do that.

Not only that.  I would not be surprised if there are judges who are so concerned about the chilling effects of prosecuting or even arresting someone for exercise of speech which is not absolutely explicit such as ones with “death” in them that they would not only refuse to approve the prosecution’s case/arrest, but may even scold the DA/police officers for violating the first amendment rights of the person wearing that Jefferson quote. 

Heck, in some cases, that person may attempt to not only turn it around by making him/herself out to be a political martyr, but may also attempt to file a SLAPP suit against those who arrested/prosecuted him.  Regardless of how groundless this case may be, this is more political hay for yahoos like this….

Comment #326: exholt  on  08/18  at  11:25 PM

or you walk around believing that you can treat people like shit and they should lick your ass in return.

Boy, that’s funny coming from you. You think you can lie however you like about the words coming out of my keyboard, and yet in return I’m supposed to owe you some explanation of my views.

Comment #327: asdf  on  08/18  at  11:46 PM

“We pay attention to this obviously ... to someone with a firearm when they open carry even when they are within state law,” Donovan said. “We work with our law enforcement counterparts to make sure laws and regulations in their states are enforced.”

Translation:

At least one sniper team had the shooter with crosshairs on him with the spotter watching through binoculars, another team was on backup, the agents and local police assigned to security in that area knew where he was at any given second and had their been any indication he was a threat his head would have met bullet.

Comment #328: KeithM  on  08/19  at  01:47 AM

I will be very surprised if we get through the next 4 or the next 8 years without something terrible happening.

And how many large scale shootings have there been since November?  Terrible things are already happening.

My beef with this post is one that was mentioned further upthread - that we are making light of this threat, mocking the gun nut rather childishly with penis jokes.  The comparison here is quietly saying penis size = masculinity = something that is important, even if not worried about it in the least.  Most of the qualities that these gun nuts despise is feminine, no doubt, but it is also part of being a stable, mature adult.  Obama’s manhood is less important to me than his adulthood.  He’s responsible, intelligent, and far more open with the American public than his predecessor was - you know, the guy all these other guys thought they could sit down and have a beer with?  Didn’t Obama actually do that with Professor Gates and some power-hungry cop?  I digress.  Gun nuts are definitely concerned about masculinity issues that have not been proven to be related to penis size.  The cult of masculinity does not say that it is ok to obey your wife, have sex with men, or otherwise not be an all powerful patriarch if you just have a good, thick 8 incher. 

And though gun nuts tend to be conservative, there is no shortage of men on the left with masculinity angst.  I am learning to take all of the value out of a phrase like “be a man” and instead, prefer to refer to responsible, brave qualities as part of being an adult.  Of course, this kind of thing would really make the gun nuts flip out.

Comment #329: Ursula  on  08/19  at  02:37 AM

So again, all I can say is that this will escalate.

Maybe so, but that’s no reason to throw out the Constitution and the rule of law, just because something bad might happen.

I really would not have guessed that liberals would defend this shit.

Maybe you need to re-check your definition of “liberal.”  I would not have guessed that a liberal would advocate “putting down” dissenters and discarding Constitutional rights that he finds inconvenient.  That’s not typically a liberal position.

And I’m really tired of the round robin.  My positon has not changed nor has anyone arguing against me.  And neither of us will change our positions.

Welcome to every messageboard discussion, everywhere, on every topic.

Comment #330: liberalrob  on  08/19  at  03:42 AM

“It’s time to water the tree of liberty” = obscure reference to a quote by the Third President of the United States, which contains no inherent meaning which suggests a threat to the president’s life.

Oh, brother - I’m not an American and I can tell you the next five words oh-so-carefully left unsaid with that quote…

In fairness to Caton, he’s right that the implication behind the use of that quote is very clear.  Let’s not be disingenuous; we all know what the wingers mean when they start using that quote.  It’s a dog-whistle that everyone with half a brain can understand (it has to be, given the intended audience…).

But there’s a big difference between quoting quotes and taking actions.  Quoting quotes is political speech, however reprehensible.  If we start arresting people for saying things we don’t like to hear, where does that end?  Do we really want to go down that road, Caton?  Is that freedom?  Should the Nazis have been allowed to march in Skokie?  That was a clear threat to the Jews who lived there.  Should Klan rallies be prohibited?  Those are clear threats to minorities.  Can we say we have a free society, yet proscribe speech we deem unseemly?

The law should not be a cudgel used to beat down dissent or suppress unpopular speech.

Comment #331: liberalrob  on  08/19  at  04:01 AM

He’s responsible, intelligent, and far more open with the American public than his predecessor was ....  Gun nuts are definitely concerned about masculinity issues that have not been proven to be related to penis size.  The cult of masculinity does not say that it is ok to obey your wife, have sex with men, or otherwise not be an all powerful patriarch if you just have a good, thick 8 incher.

Ursula,

Good points on President Obama and adulthood traits with one major exception. 

I’m not sure the choice of the word “obey” is the right choice, however, especially in relationships of two adults who are supposed to be equals in a nominally democratic republic. 

Could be the fact I’ve studied too much history and politics of actual Fascist and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist regimes, but the word “obey” has a severe authoritarian connotation I would usually associate with such regimes or with hierarchical unequal relationships found throughout history such as master and servant/slave, boss and employee, lord and serf, parent and child, etc.

Comment #332: exholt  on  08/19  at  05:34 AM

You see, you people are trying way too hard to make people who value the 2nd Amendment look like war-mongering, racist, sexist, assholes. No one threatened anything. No one is racking their bolts back to put a round in the chamber. No one is pointing their firearms. These people are law-abiding citizens excersising their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.

Please show me a law or a link or whatever the fuck you got that says it’s illegal to show up outside a building with the Prez with a rifle or pistol.

And tb, I would feel delighted if the Black Panthers showed up at a rally. I really would, because unlike you, I don’t believe in restricting anyone’s rights. I’m sure you go to Black Panther meetings ALL the time, right? And what the fuck do you mean “my kind?” You assume I watch Glenn Beck, which I don’t. Don’t try to fucking put me in your black and white labelling of Democrat and Republican.

Comment #333: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  08/19  at  05:40 AM

You see, you people are trying way too hard to make people who value the 2nd Amendment look like war-mongering, racist, sexist, assholes.

No, moron. Even a half-assed reading of this thread proves you wrong. This discussion has been full of liberals and leftists who value the Second Amendment.

But some people are war-mongering, racist, sexist assholes, like you. And some of those people also obsess over guns. That coincidence is not surprising, though it’s not an indictment of decent people who own guns. Typical that a conservative like you would deliberately try to blur the issue.

Comment #334: asdf  on  08/19  at  08:01 AM

Rob I already answered every one of your so-called “points” time and again on this thread.  You idiots keep coming back and typing the same bs over and then I hve to type the same bs over.  I’m done with that.  Learn to read the first time.

-of course everybody knows that was a threat, and they are being disingenous.  The tipoff was when others challenged DTG and she or he completely ignored those posts to write more plays about me.  DTG got a boner on for me because of asdf.  DTG is a fucking liar, but too dug in to climb out now, so he or she must continue to pretend two things:  that was not a threat, and I am the only one who is saying it clearly was.

-I am not a he.

Comment #335: Lady Vader  on  08/19  at  08:41 AM

One interesting thing - I spent so much time on this fucking bullshit yesterday, that I wasn’t much reading two other sites I normally read - TPM & huffp.  After perusing them this morning I discovered that in fact, the position of the majority of pandagon “liberals” is not at all broadly shared.  It is more along the lines of what I expect the liberal position to be.

First of all, a death threat is a death threat and not covered under “Free speech” and secondly, many liberals were arguing that the second amendment excuse is a crock of shit since none of these assholes are part of “well-regulated militias”. 

i have to admit, I felt much better after reading a lot of posts on different liberal sites.  This site really confused and disturbed me yesterday, and I thought it was me.  But actually it was you.

You guys may think you’re typically liberal and that I’m “facist’, but you’re full of shit.  And you ain’t liberals.  You are certainly full of yourselves and holier-than-thou,  but you fall short because you don’t hold, you know, actual liberal postions.  Sorry!

Comment #336: Lady Vader  on  08/19  at  08:50 AM

No, moron. Even a half-assed reading of this thread proves you wrong. This discussion has been full of liberals and leftists who value the Second Amendment.

You’ll have to forgive WTF—he’s spent a bit too much time in a place where men carrying assault rifles outside political events are considered the norm instead of bizarre aberrations like that black-helicopter nutbar in Arizona.

That and the fact that he apparently assumes that the only people who see value in the 2nd Amendment and/or use firearms also automatically buy into the right-wing garbage in that NRA pamphlet. In a way, WTF operates on the same narrow assumptions as Caton when it comes to a conception of “actual liberals”:

You are certainly full of yourselves and holier-than-thou, but you fall short because you don’t hold, you know, actual liberal postions.  Sorry!

More importantly, Caton, are we True Scotsmen?

Look, guys, firearms don’t have any magical juju, good or evil. They’re incredibly powerful tools that can be used or misused, and until you accept that fact you’ll spend most of your time in a silly argument over whether a fetish object carries a protective spell (WTF say yes!) or a dire curse (Caton say yes!).

Meanwhile, we “actual liberals” will get out the popcorn and enjoy the show.

Comment #337: Gracchus.  on  08/19  at  09:35 AM

Caton:

It’s nice to know you have your nice little list of liberal litmus tests and that others comforted you.  Which has nothing to do with the fact you are perfectly willing to suppress legal dissent in the same manner BushCo did.

You never did understand that the Health Care Plan opponensts wanted to turn the debate away from health care and turn it toward gun control; which worked, at least with you.  I posted the stuff from USSS and you did not even comment on it.  Figures.

Comment #338: Magis  on  08/19  at  09:45 AM

First of all, a death threat is a death threat and not covered under “Free speech”

No shit, but like Gracchus said:

“It’s an interesting question of ambiguity in the face of common knowledge. The Secret Service understands exactly what that sign means—any sign or utterance indirectly referencing tyrants or irregular transfers of power in their widest perimeter sets off serious alarms with them.

Most modern Americans who serve on juries, however, can be convinced to look at the Jefferson quote in exactly the way you describe. The Secret Service apparently chooses to keep tabs on those who utter sneaky and cowardly threats instead of arresting them.”

and secondly, many liberals were arguing that the second amendment excuse is a crock of shit since none of these assholes are part of “well-regulated militias”.

A lot of people, liberal and otherwise, are functionally illiterate and do not understand compound sentences.

I invite you to read the Supreme Court’s Heller decision of 2008, which settles the matter. Here’s a helpful quote, since you won’t bother:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

They also affirmed the circuit court’s ruling, which was equally unambiguous:

Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

So if you think the Second Amendment should only allow people to bear arms in well-regulated militias, you’re wrong, you’ve already lost, and it’s over. Now you just need to get accustomed to the fact that you lost. May I suggest grief counseling?

And you ain’t liberals.  You are certainly full of yourselves and holier-than-thou, but you fall short because you don’t hold, you know, actual liberal postions.  Sorry!

That’s cute. You actually defined liberals as only those people who agree with you. I didn’t think you were an authoritarian before, but now you’re definitely acting like one.

Comment #339: asdf  on  08/19  at  09:45 AM

I should have said “listening to their wives” on retrospect, but I was actually thinking in terms of how the gun nuts would actually see it.  To them, listening and respecting someone’s opinion (without being patronizing) are the actions of the weak, of women or “feminized” men.

Comment #340: Ursula  on  08/19  at  10:49 AM

And you ain’t liberals.  You are certainly full of yourselves and holier-than-thou, but you fall short because you don’t hold, you know, actual liberal postions.  Sorry!

All hail Caton!  Caton is the TRVTH and the Sole Arbiter of what is Liberal!  Heed ye Caton’s words lest thou be condemned to be a conservative unto eternity!

You really are full of yourself, aren’t you?

Comment #341: KeithM  on  08/19  at  01:02 PM

You idiots

Calling people “idiots” is not generally the way to get them to respect your opinions.  Maybe that’s not important to you.

the position of the majority of pandagon “liberals” is not at all broadly shared.

You think you know what the majority of “Pandagon liberals” thinks?  ROFL.  I’m a minority of one around here, just ask anyone.  In fact I doubt you’ve heard the positions of anywhere near a representative sample of Pandagonians.  It doesn’t bother me in the slightest that your research at TPM or HUffPo leads you to conclude that I’m out of the mainstream of liberal thought; I never claimed I was in it.  I believe what I believe, and I choose to call it liberal because it sure as hell isn’t conservative.

You guys may think you’re typically liberal and that I’m “facist’,

I don’t think you’re fascist and I don’t claim to be typically liberal.  I think you’re not thinking through the implications of what you’re proposing and while your intentions are good, your methods are contrary to the way a liberal society should work.  That’s all.

-I am not a he.

Now I know that.

Comment #342: liberalrob  on  08/19  at  01:05 PM

Hmmm…..

The rancorous tone of the dustup between Caton and asdf eerily resembles the very sort of verbal slugfests I’ve had the distinct pleasure/displeasure of experiencing and witnessing in and out of class during my time as an undergrad at my progressive radical-left oriented private liberal arts college. 

Only thing missing is a campuswide protest and harassment campaign approaching stalking against the perceived less “progressive position”....especially when two friends involved in Amnesty international were subjected to both for merely saying “Genocide Sucks” and then being accused of “trivializing it” by another progressive activist organization…. rolleyes

Comment #343: exholt  on  08/19  at  01:17 PM

Let’s dispose of this, once and for all.  I wanted to talk about Schenk earlier but that would have killed the debate.

For those of you who don’t know (probably few around here) Justice Holmes once uttered the famous phrase “shouting fire in a crowded theater.”

The premise, of course, being that there was no fire.  In 1919, the Court in Schenk v. U.S. announced the “clear and present danger doctrine.”  That is to say you could not limit speech unless it posed a clear and present danger to the life and limb of somebody, President or otherwise.  In this case since the protestors were not in same building as the President, supression fails the test on its face.

BUT WAIT (as the pitchmen say)

It’s worse than that.  In Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, the Warren court imposed a much stricter test on limiting free speech; the “imminent lawless action” test.  To wit:  (emphasis mine)

The per curiam majority opinion overturned the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), and articulated a new test — the “imminent lawless action” test — for judging so-called seditious speech under the First Amendment:
“  …Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing <u>imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.</u>

Once again, violence against the President would have been impossible under the instant circumstances which equals, well, FAIL.

Comment #344: Magis  on  08/19  at  01:34 PM

Thanks, exholt! At least I still have my youthful charms.

I won’t be carrying the animosity over into a later thread, though. I prefer that these fights be contained.

Is she gone? Because I’d like to answer the question she posed, for the sake of civil discussion, though she herself didn’t deserve an answer.

I could be mistaken in my perception, but it appears to me that I take rights to mean something different than many here do, particularly Gracchus. And that’s okay; Gracchus, iirc, is a lawyer and so needs to be foremost concerned about a clearly defined set of rights that the courts deal with.

For me, rights are not dependent upon the Constitution. All people everywhere have the right to arm themselves in self-defense, even if their nations do not recognize this right. And parents do not have the right to teach their children to hate other people, even though our nation allows them that privilege. I don’t mean that the First Amendment should be changed; enforcement of my view would cause more problems than it would solve.

Because the presence of guns can have a chilling effect on speech, I’m not convinced that there’s a right to bring guns to every political rally. It depends on the actual need for self-defense. As yet, no one’s lives have been endangered at these town hall meetings. So there’s no demonstrated need for potentially lethal self-defense. Weighing that fact against guns’ chilling effect on speech, I believe speech should win the day.

Because these events are temporary and one can freely choose whether or not to attend, but even then only because the right to free speech is also in jeopardy, a very short and extremely localized suspension of the right to be armed may be an acceptable compromise.

But this balance would change if the violence escalates such that people’s lives are endangered. Then the right to bring guns in self-defense would be more important.

None of this theory, though, has any immediate bearing on whether a citizen in Arizona is permitted to openly carry an AR-15 in the street outside a political event. On this question, the law is clearly “yes.” And I agree with others here that the rule of law should prevail. Unless and until the situation is legislatively changed, we must sometimes accept imperfect outcomes for the sake of preserving our constitutional democracy.

I don’t think this makes me an authoritarian ass, but I’m putting it out there to hear others’ reactions.

Comment #345: asdf  on  08/19  at  02:45 PM

asdf:

There is a theory that rights exist a priori.  This is not necessarily a religious thing for it also exists in secular natural law theories.

One can certainly derive this idea from Kant’s categorical imperative.  A human being ought to have a right to do as he/she damn well pleases unless that causes injury to others.  Government, then, ought only to limit rights when the conflict is obvious or they should otherwise exist to mediate between the two parties.  Anything else is antithetical to natural law.

However, utilitarianism states that what is best is that which brings the most good to the most people; fuck rights.  It is not an irrational argument (aside from measurement difficulties) but still it does not accept the idea of the rights of the minorities.

Where this gets dicey, under the first idea, is whether I can legitimately argue to limit your rights because you simply scare me.  You haven’t done anything mind you, nor have you explicitly threatened to harm me.  Still, something you do or say, makes me ill at ease.  Perhaps, as in the case of Caton, induces near appoplexy.  Do I have a right under common law to ask my Common Law government to ask you to cease and desist?

Around that, our arguments were made.  A conflict of claimed rights is always one of the most interesting arguments.

You rightly argue that the context of the situation must be weighed in determining the outcome.  Without that argument all of the Supreme Court “tests” are meaningless.

Comment #346: Magis  on  08/19  at  03:10 PM

I’m not an attorney, just an American liberal (and card-carrying member of the ACLU) who believes that rule of secular law is better than rule of men. I look for a balance between the common good and safety (i.e. “the general welfare”) and individual liberties (in matters social and economic), with an understanding that sometimes those things are one and the same and sometimes they’re at odds even as they must co-exist.

All of which sounds very Capra-corny, but there it is. I don’t think we fundamentally disagree, except that in matters concerning the American Republic I find the Constitution (and the non-binding statements in the Declaration) to be the best practical standard against which we can test state-imposed laws and individual behaviours in various contexts and situations.

I’ve made my points about this particular situation earlier, so I’ll only add that I’d be wary of looking at the kind of situation we saw in Arizona as a contest between the First and Second Amendments. From a political viewpoint, both Amendments provide citizens with ways and means to challenge the state and the government outside of the processes described elsewhere in the document: the first was intended to be the very broad first resort, the second was intended to be the much narrower last resort.

The real issue regarding these rights is that a small group of citizens are hot to jump right to the last resort, and that a larger group of citizens are either so cynical or so ignorant and stupid that they’re intent (with the shameful collusion of the MSM) on degrading the quality of discourse allowed by the first resort against perceived tyranny. In both cases, these citizens betray a deep hatred of the core values of the Constitution, even as they cite it to justify their actions.

This has been a long thread, so I’ll leave it at that.

Comment #347: Gracchus.  on  08/19  at  04:01 PM

asdf, you douche nozzle, I may be a war mongrel, but please give me an example of how I’m a racist and sexist. Not everyone who disagrees with your fucked up way of thinking is a fascist/sexist/racist/asshole.

Gracchus, what place is that? Unlike you, I believe the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st.

Comment #348: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  08/19  at  04:34 PM

Gracchus, what place is that? Unlike you, I believe the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st

Learn to read, WTF—I said nothing about importance, just about intended usage and application. I know these are alien concepts to folks like yourself, but try to keep up.

As to what place it is, it’s a place where the drafters of the constitution weren’t eagerly anticipating regular armed insurrections against the state they were defining. Or, to put it in terms you’ll understand, I’m talking about Jefferson and Hamilton’s America, not Bush and Cheney’s Iraq.

Comment #349: Gracchus.  on  08/19  at  04:59 PM

Magis:

Where this gets dicey, under the first idea, is whether I can legitimately argue to limit your rights because you simply scare me.  You haven’t done anything mind you, nor have you explicitly threatened to harm me.  Still, something you do or say, makes me ill at ease.  Perhaps, as in the case of Caton, induces near appoplexy.  Do I have a right under common law to ask my Common Law government to ask you to cease and desist?

Good question. I would be terrified if I was walking down the street at night and a group of young white men stepped out of a church. But if they’re not deliberately trying to intimidate me, my fear shouldn’t affect their rights to assemble, nor permit me to draw my weapon to deliberately intimidate them.

On the other hand, I’m willing to shift the burden of responsibility in some limited instances. If your actions have a chilling effect on free speech in fora that were designed expressly for the purpose of facilitating free speech, then it may be your responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that you do not unintentionally intimidate others.


Gracchus:

I must have had you confused with someone lawyerly for a while, then. I hope you’ll take it as a compliment.

I think we’re lucky that the Constitution recognizes so many basic rights. I’m not interested in the rule of law for its own sake, though; it’s legitimate only so far as the government is responsive to the citizenry.

I agree with you that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment—to secure a free state—is not at odds with the purposes of the First Amendment. I just don’t think that packing heat at political meetings which have thus far not seen lethal violence is conducive to either liberty or security.


whiskeytangofoxtrot:

Perhaps I was wrong about you. I assumed you were a sexist because you belittle people by comparing them to the female anatomy, and call women who stand up for themselves “feminazis.” And I assumed you were a racist because you don’t care how many Iraqis die if the end result is to make Iraq an ally of the United States.

But after your stupidass responses in this thread, I’m willing to consider the possibility that you are just a pitiable semiliterate who says racist and sexist things, without enough introspection to know better.

And I didn’t think you’re a fascist. I think you’re a feudalist.

Comment #350: asdf  on  08/19  at  05:59 PM

it’s legitimate only so far as the government is responsive to the citizenry

That part’s covered by the other founding document, the philosophical Declaration which explains why they’re planning on going to the trouble of writing up a Constitution later on:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Those guys really knew what they were doing.

I just don’t think that packing heat at political meetings which have thus far not seen lethal violence is conducive to either liberty or security.

It’s pretty clear that I share that view.

Comment #351: Gracchus.  on  08/19  at  06:15 PM

*grins*

The answer, asdf, is:  “Only if they were Unitarians.”

Comment #352: Magis  on  08/19  at  06:34 PM

Yep.

Comment #353: asdf  on  08/19  at  06:58 PM

Rob I already answered every one of your so-called “points” time and again on this thread.  You idiots keep coming back and typing the same bs over and then I hve to type the same bs over.  I’m done with that.  Learn to read the first time.

-of course everybody knows that was a threat, and they are being disingenous.  The tipoff was when others challenged DTG and she or he completely ignored those posts to write more plays about me.  DTG got a boner on for me because of asdf.  DTG is a fucking liar, but too dug in to climb out now, so he or she must continue to pretend two things:  that was not a threat, and I am the only one who is saying it clearly was.

-I am not a he.

Look you fucking troglodyte, this is getting real tired.

When you say that the words “It is time to water the tree of liberty” is clearly a death threat and I disagree with that assertion, it doesn’t mean that I am siding with the fuckstick holding the sign, or even that I believe he meant nothing ominous by holding such a poster.

I agree with liberalrob’s assessment… the poster was clearly meant to be intimidating, and it was clearly a dogwhistle trying to send a fairly ominous message.

And I agree that Mr. Kostrick probably would like something bad to happen to the President Obama, and he was holding that sign as a way of implying that.

All that said… a threat has to be clear and explicit to be legally considered a threat.  Dogwhistles, “veiled” threats, and our interpretation of words do not make something an explicit threat.

An explicit threat is “I want to kill the president”.

An explicit threat ISN’T “It is time to water the tree of liberty”.  Do you understand what the word “explicit” means, you moron?  It doesn’t mean implicit, and though there may well have been an implied threat in that man’s poster, it was nothing more than an implied threat at most, which necessarily means that it wasn’t an “EXPLICIT” threat.  IMPLICIT =/= EXPLICIT, got it?  Something explicit isn’t coded, it isn’t veiled, it isn’t hinted at, it isn’t loosely suggested… it’s right out there in the fucking open with absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever.

For what it is worth, I also believe that it is time to water the tree of liberty, but when I say those words, what I am saying is that I think it is time for us wee people to be liberated from the oppressive forces of the corporatocracy.  Currently, I want the tree of liberty to be watered for the 47 Million uninsured Americans, and the tens of millions of Americans whose insurance coverage is grossly in adequate.

I want that fucking tree of liberty watered.

Now when I say those words, there is absolutely NO IMPLICATION whatsoever that I want harm to be brought upon the president.  As for what I mean when I say those words, all you can do is try to divine the meaning based on what you know about me as a person, but even then, all you are doing is speculating.

When a fucknut like Mr. Kostrick holds a sign saying that it’s time to water the tree liberty, we look at him, we see he’s a gun nut, we know he was a Ron Paul supporter, and we know that he doesn’t like the President and believes the federal government is getting to big.  And that is ALL we know about him.  From those piece of information, to conclude that his sign was definitely saying that he wants to kill the president is taking a huge leap and making a lot of assumptions about him.

You cannot arrest a person for holding a sign which you and maybe even I believe was trying to send a coded message.  It is unconstitutional, and that’s not what we liberals support.  It is Bush-style treachery, and it would make us like them.

“It is time to water the tree of liberty” is not, I repeat NOT, an “EXPLICIT” threat… and look up the definition of the word “explicit” if you have trouble figuring that out.  It might have been an implicit threat, but that assumption is based purely on speculation, and does not constitute sound proof beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, which is the legal standard we use to distinguish criminals from non-criminals.

The burder of proof lies with the prosecution.  Saying “it’s a threat because I say so” does not prove your claim to be true.  You need to prove conclusively that that poster constituted a threat.  Not “might have been” a threat, but absolutely, indisputably was a threat.  You cannot prove that beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, so you cannot legally arrest Mr. Kostrick without circumventing the Constitution.

Case fucking closed.

Comment #354: DTG in STL  on  08/19  at  08:56 PM

Hi:

I’ve been reading this thread, as a long-time lurker here on Pandagon, and have been moved to register in order to contribute some information to the flame war.

Firstly, The First Amendment right to free speech includes a right to assemble and petition the government.  Therefore, I don’t believe the Bush “Free Speech Zones” were in any way legal.  At the same time, our right to free speech doesn’t extend to committing fraud by telling lies about our products for sale nor to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater when that isn’t the case.

Secondly, the Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms, and many state constitutions go even further.  And while open carry of firearms is legal in many states, including Arizona, even CCW permit holders are barred from carrying guns in many places, including courthouses, hospitals government offices, bars, etc.  In Texas and Arizona you see legal forms posted on business and government doors prohibiting anyone not a law enforcement officer from bearing arms inside, whether open or permitted concealed.

And no CCW law I am aware of gives anyone the right to bear arms to threaten violence politically.

Personally, I live on a farm in a very rural area of a generally rural state with open carry and CCW rules.  I own guns, 4 operational weapons and 2 old family keepsakes that would probably fire some but are probably as dangerous to the holder of the gun as to the target.  We need guns occasionally to deal with animals like the possum currently trapped in my trashcan, or seriously injured animals who must be euthanized out of mercy, and rarely (thank goodness!) tyo deal with people suffering from intoxication and/or nervous breakdown who have become dangerously violent.  We are at least 45 minutes from the nearest law enforcement officer, under the best of circumstances (like assuming Kevin is awake, dressed and on-duty).

Never-the-less, those using their guns as political tools are walking on a line, and on one side of that line is the commission of terrorist threatening.  Many of these folks are almost certainly guilty of breaking laws intended to quash the KKK many years ago, and to deal with lynch mobs in the same era.

I think petitioning the various law enforcement and justice agencies both state and federal to investigate and vigorously prosecute everyone involved with carrying guns in a threatening manner, those who organized just such mob activity, and those who recommended such mob activity (Rush, I’m talking about you and Beck and Hannity here!) is in order.  We choked the KKK to death (figuratively, mostly) years ago and we can choke these unAmerican rabble as well.

If petitions don’t work, then taking these guys (law enforcement and prosecutors)  to court to force them to take action to protect our political system and those peacefully participating in it would be in order, and suing those people issuing these violent threats into bankruptcy, just as the Southern Poverty Law Center did the KKK not long ago would be a step that could be taken while prosecution is beginning.

Just saying, that’s all.

Comment #355: JR Anonymous  on  08/19  at  11:48 PM

It’s getting real late in this thread, but I read you.

I wish I could comment more informatively on what constitutes an indictable offense. In the SPLC cases, I thought, there were substantial crimes committed and then the SPLC was able to trace a clearly articulated path of incitement back to certain speeches. This required multiple cooperative interviews. And it ended up, I thought, that you could teach people to despise and wish for the death of X, but not explicitly request violence against X in front of people who then carried out said act.

Comment #356: asdf  on  08/20  at  02:19 AM

Oh Gracchus, you make me laugh. Why would Jefferson say “When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

asdf, I believe woman are equal to men. However, in my opinion, every white man is not evil, according to some extreme feminists. Since when is saying the word “pussy” a condemning allegation of sexism? Remember, I retracted and said using “feminazi” was a poor choice of words. I know you’re infallible, but please forgive me. And how can I be racist? Your statement is such fucking bullshit. Because I fought in Iraq, does this make me automatically apathetic to dead Iraqis? Fuck you! You have no fucking idea how shitty it feels to see a dead man on the streets. As a matter of fact, I do give a shit about the Iraqi people, just not terrorist motherfuckers who kill innocent civilians for scare tactics. Do you wish the Iraqis were still being oppressed? Yeah, nice job of being a fucking liberal.

I know you wish I were a feudalist, but I’m gonna have to burst your bubble and say you wish we lived in a totalitarian government, you fucking pinko commie bastard.

Sucks, doesn’t it?

Comment #357: whiskeytangofoxtrot  on  08/20  at  04:54 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.