Dozen armed with guns protest Obama's speech

Status
Not open for further replies.
Listen now, one last time: the 2A, the Bill of Rights, the entire Constitution...they're just words. Words that express high ideals and the finest articulation of human liberty that has ever been written, but just words nonetheless, and words mean whatever people say they mean.
Amen. I wish more of these fools who insist on "rubbing their face in it" when it comes to sheeple could see that they are like Don Quixote tilting at windmills. The real battle is a down and dirty political fight for the hearts and minds of the majority. We're not winning.

Bob
 
Update on Who Organized the Denver Armed Protest

Well, it has now come to light that the guy who organized the armed demonstration at the President's health care town hall meeting in Colorado formerly defended the Vipers, a domestic terrorist group that was taken down in the 1990s with large amounts of ammonium nitrate and illegal weapons, this on the heels of the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. His take on McVeigh: "Well, he was the one they decided to pin it on."

I see. Ahem.

So, these armed demonstrators in Colorado and New Hampshire were not left-wing ACORN plants, or SEIU provocateurs. They were lunatic right-wing fringe fanatics who associate with people who countenance the killing of some Americans by other Americans because they don't like their politics.

No one, except apparently two or three posters to this thread, believes that the people in Colorado and New Hampshire who came strapped to these town hall meetings were simply exercising their 2A rights. The overwhelming consensus--left, right, and center--is that they were there to intimidate.

Intimidation as a political tool is un-American. It's the kind of thing one associates with what the Brown Shirts (the SA) were used for in Nazi Germany.

I brought the subject of these armed stunts up again at our local breakfast club this morning. When I asked this group of good 'ole Virginia boy combat vets, NRA members, gun owners (for sure), and hunters what they thought of these recent events, the response--to a man--was laughter, followed by the expressed wish that those involved "kiss the concrete," and soon.

The people who organized and participated in the armed stunts in Colorado and New Hampshire have done great harm to the cause of 2A rights. They should be denounced, not defended, and those of us who support the expansion of the right should be leading the charge. These tin-foil hat wearing whackos should not be permitted to hijack and do further damage to our movement.


Bullseye
 
Last edited:
Well, it has now come to light that the guy who organized the armed demonstration at the President's health care town hall meeting in Colorado formerly defended the Vipers, a domestic terrorist group that was taken down in the 1990s with large amounts of ammonium nitrate and illegal weapons, this on the heels of the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. His take on McVeigh: "Well, he was the one they decided to pin it on."

I see. Ahem.

So, these armed demonstrators in Colorado and New Hampshire were not left-wing ACORN plants, or SEIU provocateurs. They were lunatic right-wing fringe fanatics who associate with people who countenance the killing of some Americans by other Americans because they don't like their politics.

No one, except apparently two or three posters to this thread, believes that the people in Colorado and New Hampshire who came strapped to these town hall meetings were simply exercising their 2A rights. The overwhelming consensus--left, right, and center--is that they were there to intimidate.

Intimidation as a political tool is un-American. It's the kind of thing one associates with what the Brown Shirts (the SA) were used for in Nazi Germany.

I brought the subject of these armed stunts up again at our local breakfast club this morning. When I asked this group of good 'ole Virginia boy combat vets, NRA members, gun owners (for sure), and hunters what they thought of these recent events, the response--to a man--was laughter, followed by the expressed wish that those involved "kiss the concrete," and soon.

The people who organized and participated in the armed stunts in Colorado and New Hampshire have done great harm to the cause of 2A rights. They should be denounced, not defended, and those of us who support the expansion of the right should be leading the charge. These tin-foil hat wearing whackos should not be permitted to hijack and do further damage to our movement.


Bullseye

So, in a nutshell, you are saying you would seek to silence your political opposition. Because the way they exercise their rights might hurt your cause, they should not be permitted to exercise those rights.

Now THAT is the American way. :rolleyes:
 

To be fair, that footage was AP video picked up by numerous networks - not a MSNBC creation.

MSNBC's day time "talent" that opined on the AP clip certainly showed their pre-dispositions in assuming a racist connection without full knowledge of the facts and reality.

Only later when new video became available that identified the black guy with the AR and the organizer who interviewed him did they drop the racist talk and make the alledged link to the Viper Militia.
 
I am certainly not saying anything about silencing anyone.

But, since the people who pulled these stunts don't have the savvy or the skills to make a positive contribution to 2A politics, those of us who do have the obligation to let others know that these fringe fanatics do not speak for us, and, to drown them out with our overwhelming disapproval of their bully-boy tactics.

How dare they invoke the words of Thomas Jefferson to justify the murder of Americans by domestic terrorists!


Bullseye
 
So, in a nutshell, you are saying you would seek to silence your political opposition. Because the way they exercise their rights might hurt your cause, they should not be permitted to exercise those rights.

Now THAT is the American way. :rolleyes:

I tend to agree to with Bullseye. It's not about silencing political opposition - but rejecting intimidation as a proper form of political expression.

I won't go so far as to argue that they "cannot" do as they did as they were within the confines of the law, but as a responsible gun owner and 2A supporter I certainly would argue that they "should not" do as they did.

I too would agree that they have hurt the 2A cause and that 2A organizations should not lend ANY credibility to these guys. The alleged links to domestic terrorist is troubling...
 
.

Only later when new video became available that identified the black guy with the AR and the organizer who interviewed him did they drop the racist talk and make the alledged link to the Viper Militia.



Of course,
If they weren't racists,then they all had to be right wing extremists militia!
The same as there isn't real grass root protesters at any of the town hall meetings.
They are all plants!
I know this is true, because Nancy Pelosi said so!

(SARCASM MODE ) >OFF
 
Ooops!

While this continues to be one of the most informative and entertaining threads on this esteemed forum it also illustrates the negative impact that these protestors will have on 2A rights. It divides gun owners, reinforces negative stereotypes, misdirects debate, and, believe this; confirms and strengthens anti-gun sentiments in the general population.
Whoever these folks were they showed incredibly bad judgement and I hope that the damage can be mitigated by more reasonable actions and arguments in the future or gun-rights advocates will have only themselves to blame for the inevitable back-lash to these highly theatrical "stunts".
 
(1)No one, except apparently two or three posters to this thread, believes that the people in Colorado and New Hampshire who came strapped to these town hall meetings were simply exercising their 2A rights. The overwhelming consensus--left, right, and center--is that they were there to intimidate.



(2) brought the subject of these armed stunts up again at our local breakfast club this morning. When I asked this group of good 'ole Virginia boy combat vets, NRA members, gun owners (for sure), and hunters what they thought of these recent events, the response--to a man--was laughter, followed by the expressed wish that those involved "kiss the concrete," and soon.



Bullseye


(1)---Well at first, when you jumped into this thread----

(A). You said them carrying a gun was threatening.
(B).When I called you on thinking that way. You denied it!
Saying you meant --others-- thought that way-- but not you.

So now we skip (c) and go back to (A)
So now your back to thinking that it --was-- a threatening move to open carry there?
Do you have any idea on WHAT you think?
Or do we need to watch the weather report to see which way the wind blows to know how you are thinking -today-?

(2)You don't have to go into such detail describing your breakfast club members.
I think everyone here knows them.
Anyone on the way to work in the morning stopping at Mickey D's for coffee can see them everyday.
They're the group of guys sitting in the same spot day after day drinking free coffee and curing the ills of the world!
Bet you didn't know we all knew ya!
 
While this continues to be one of the most informative and entertaining threads on this esteemed forum it also illustrates the negative impact that these protestors will have on 2A rights. It divides gun owners, reinforces negative stereotypes, misdirects debate, and, believe this; .
Whoever these folks were they showed incredibly bad judgement and I hope that the damage can be mitigated by more reasonable actions and arguments in the future or gun-rights advocates will have only themselves to blame for the inevitable back-lash to these highly theatrical "stunts".

Well said, sir... poor judgement indeed... paints all gun owners with the same broad brush... bad press for 2A supporters... does confirm and strengthen anti-gun sentiments in the general population...
 
A Reply to the Gentleman from Ohio

No, you incredibly obtuse (look it up) man, we are not a group of guys sitting around drinking free coffee. We are all working men who get up early to enjoy each other's fellowship, and we pay for our food and drink with the money we earn. Over the years, I have found these men to be a very reliable barometer of conservative, gun-owning public opinion, and I like the wry (look it up) way in which those opinions are often expressed.

Since once again you have opened the door to personal attacks in this thread, yes, we do like to discuss the doings of semi-literate fools like you, whose antics provide us with a never-ending source of bemusement that the Founders could have given us a system of government in which your vote is worth as much as is ours.

Let me suggest that if you wish to continue to initiate personal verbal battle with me, that (1.) you are seriously outclassed and should withdraw now; and, (2.) that you send whatever addled blatherings you may produce via PM so that we can bring a merciful and swift end to your continuing, self-inflicted public humiliation. I promise to keep to myself whatever illogical, poorly written, politically naive comments you may happen to make in those private exchanges with me.

In a word, if you don't have anything more to contribute to the ideas we are attempting to discuss and debate in this thread, just shut up.


Bullseye
 
.

In a word, if you don't have anything more to contribute to the ideas we are attempting to discuss and debate in this thread, just shut up.


Bullseye



IDEAS?
Your ideas change each day!
Try getting some backbone!


AWWWW!
I'm sorry,
Didn't mean to upset ya there lil fella.
Have one of your breakfast buddies dab that tear from your eye .
BTW- You never did answer which side of the family your grandpa with the pig story is on.
 
Last edited:
Since once again you have opened the door to personal attacks in this thread, yes, we do like to discuss the doings of semi-literate fools like you, whose antics provide us with a never-ending source of bemusement that the Founders could have given us a system of government in which your vote is worth as much as is ours.


Bullseye
"Semi-literate?" Bullseye, I feel you're being too charitable here. Please, strive for accuracy.

I'm sure enjoying my "Ignore" list, which is actually quite short.
 
I don't get it. Why do you carry a gun openly where you know it's going to be so controversial, and your personal security is not an issue. Do you like the idea of the Secret Service prying into your life, and do you like the idea of them having a file on you, your family and your friends because of your publicity stunt? Do you really think you can do that and not be in someone's crosshairs? Does that make you feel more alive if you're one flinch of the finger away from death? What if just one person there is a real fanatic, with illusions of being a part of history and saving his country or race from the far left conspiracy. If one nutwad opens fire, then what. If someone starts shooting and Joe Blow with his AK on his shoulder, brings it off his shoulder, what then? A Secret Service agent empties his Uzi into Joe Blow, that's what. If you go around like you're looking for a fight, someone will come along and give it to you. If you look and sound like a radical, guess what, you are, no matter what anyone who really knows you thinks. Here's a fact of life: When you do right, no body remembers, when you do wrong, nobody forgets.
 
from the August 18, 2009 edition - Did rifle-toting Obama protester help or hurt gun rights? | csmonitor.com

Did rifle-toting Obama protester help or hurt gun rights?

New laws are allowing more Americans to carry guns in public. But are gun-carrying protesters going too far?

By Patrik Jonsson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Atlanta

The appearance of weapons near the president at a speech and a healthcare town hall has been cast as either a danger to the president and public debate or a sign of that gun ownership is gradually losing its stigma.

A man in a shirt and tie carried a shoulder-slung rifle near President Obama's entourage in Phoenix Tuesday. Since carrying a gun is legal in Arizona, police did not take action against him or any other gun-carrying protesters.

Last week, however, a man was arrested near the presidential town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., for not having the proper permits for a gun. Another man wore a gun in a leg holster.

To many liberals, such displays are a worrisome sign that the president's opponents are trying to intimidate public discourse. "Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement, and end up stifling debate," says Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in a statement issued Tuesday.

But many gun-rights experts see another trend at work: the "re-normalization" of gun ownership in the United States. So-called "must-issue" laws, which mandate that anyone who meets the requirements for a gun permit must be issued one, are spreading to more states. Congress has broadened the rights of gun owners recently, for example allowing guns in federal parks. And the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller last year emboldened gun owners, experts say. It confirmed that the constitutional right "to keep and bear arms" is not a state right, as some gun-control advocates had argued, but an individual right.

The recent furor over the presence of guns near the president is part of an effort to undermine these gains, says Brandon Denning, a law professor at Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Ala. It "is an attempt to somehow reverse the normalization of guns," he says. In actuality, the spread of laws that allow permit-holders to carry their weapons openly throughout much of the central, Southwestern, and Southern United States has gradually made the sight of people carrying guns less jarring, says Dave Kopel, a gun-rights expert at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.

Yet the decision by the crisply dressed man in Phoenix to carry a rifle to an anti-Obama rally seemed to be intended as a provocative statement of Second Amendment rights, says Mr. Kopel.

"This is really a form of expressive speech, and I think the fact that the Secret Service ... hasn't gotten particularly upset shows good judgement on their part," he says.

Still, the man didn't necessarily do the Second Amendment cause any favors, Kopel says.

"While I think it's really paranoid for some of the media to falsely characterize this as people trying to threaten the president, I think it shows bad judgement to carry [guns] near a presidential speech," he says. Protesters are "trying to make a statement about Second Amendment rights, but they're doing it in a way that probably sets back that cause."
 
FWIW John,
My ignore list has blossomed like spring flowers based on some of what I've read by both sides on this as well. There seemingly is no so called "common ground" over the center of a chasm. But I'm no where near being the first to have observed that geological feature?
 
I am certainly not saying anything about silencing anyone.

But, since the people who pulled these stunts don't have the savvy or the skills to make a positive contribution to 2A politics, those of us who do have the obligation to let others know that these fringe fanatics do not speak for us, and, to drown them out with our overwhelming disapproval of their bully-boy tactics.

How dare they invoke the words of Thomas Jefferson to justify the murder of Americans by domestic terrorists!


Bullseye

See, with this sentiment, I can agree. I have no problem with using your First Amendment rights to clarify the issue.
 
FWIW John,
My ignore list has blossomed like spring flowers based on some of what I've read by both sides on this as well. There seemingly is no so called "common ground" over the center of a chasm. But I'm no where near being the first to have observed that geological feature?

I don't really understand the "ignore list" thing. I can see if someone personally attacks you regularly that you might want to ignore them, but on that note, I'd think Lee would send them packing in a hurry for such actions. I guess for me, I just don't see what anyone stands to gain by placing those they are in disagreement with on the "ignore" list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top