American Politics XIV

[Crazydog7]

Guns at political rally? Why did I never think to do that when King George came to Charleston? Oh hell the Citadel would have beaten the shit out of me.

[Shryke]

Representative Barney Frank is holding a town hall meeting today in Dartmouth. While the meeting is mostly temperate, there have been a few moments of contention, as well as the occasional outburst from the obligatory protesters.

At one point, confronted by an audience member holding a picture of President Obama defaced to make Obama look like Hitler who asked how he could support Nazi policies, Frank asked "on what planet do you spend most of your time?" When asked if he would respond to the question, he said "trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/1...st-of-your-time

[awesome possum]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/1...st-of-your-time

Priceless. This is exactly how these nuts should be treated, like contemptible idiots.

[Shryke]

Here's a good one: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/18/hitler-israel/

Last week, Las Vegas radio station KDWN AM720 sponsored a “contentious†town hall, emceed by conservative morning show host Heidi Harris. At the event, local news stations were interviewing an Israeli man who was praising the “fantastic†“national health care†in Israel. During his remarks, a woman yelled out, “Heil Hitler!â€

[awesome possum]

Here's a good one: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/18/hitler-israel/

:sick:

[DanteGabriel]

Priceless. This is exactly how these nuts should be treated, like contemptible idiots.

Some of them are not just contemptible idiots, but pals with domestic terrorists as well.

Ernest Hancock, the online radio host who staged an interview with an assault rifle-wielding cohort at the Obama event in Arizona yesterday -- and was himself armed with a 9 millimeter pistol -- was a vocal supporter and friend of right-wing anti-government militia members who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s.

And in an interview today with TPMmuckraker, Hancock said he still believes the Viper Militia case was "manufactured" by the same government that manufactured Waco and lied to its people about 9/11.

The federal government initially accused the Arizona Viper Militia of plotting to blow up federal buildings, which the twelve-member group cased on videotape.

In July 1996, after a grand jury indicted the suspects, federal agents "seized about 90 high-powered rifles and hundreds of pounds of a bomb-making compound from the shabby bungalow of a man whom officials identified as the ordnance specialist of a local paramilitary group," the New York Times reported at the time.

Hancock, who in recent years designed the famous "Ron Paul rEVOLution" graphic, was an oft-quoted defender of the militia members. The tapes of the government buildings, he said at the time, were purely "educational."

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ent.php?ref=fpa

[The Progressive]

When weapons are brought to political rallies and events, there's no other purpose than to intimidate and terrorize. These domestic terrorist scums are as great a threat to this country as Al Queda and ought to be hang from the same branch of the tree of liberty.

[Yagathai]

When weapons are brought to political rallies and events, there's no other purpose than to intimidate and terrorize. These domestic terrorist scums are as great a threat to this country as Al Queda and ought to be hang from the same branch of the tree of liberty.

Well, that's patently not true.

[Yagathai]

I' also like to point out the irony of expressing the desire to lynch these so-called "domestic terrorists", who are in reality law-abiding citizens exercising their legal rights.

[Lord O' Bones]

I equate these guys with flag burners.

Except flag burners aggravate me and should be arrested for whatever crime of burning stuff in public, while the gun-toters at a health-care discussion seriously need better directions to the gun rights discussion.

[TheKassi]

I' also like to point out the irony of expressing the desire to lynch these so-called "domestic terrorists", who are in reality law-abiding citizens exercising their legal rights.

I am a proud supporter of the second amendment, but bringing weapons, particularly loaded rifles to a political protest near the President of the United States, is ridiculously stupid.

Bringing a Loaded Assault Rifle to a political protest is just insane. Way past stupid. If advocates and members of private militias can not responsibly handle automatic firearms it is almost a given that the right will be taken away.

The protesters are a bigger threat to the second amendment then just about any political force out there. I do not care if there is currently no law forbidding the brandishing of loaded assault rifles for political purposes, it is still just stupid.

These people are not bringing them to protect themselves, they are using them to spook people, and to get attention. They are treating them like toys, not weapons, and thats something every responsible gun owner should scorn.

The only place you should be showing off your firearms to the general public is a gun show, and even then most have rules about keeping them unloaded. A handgun on the hip is debatable, but possibly excusable. Rifles? No excuse. Loaded Assault Rifles? Offensively ridiculous.

[The Progressive]

I' also like to point out the irony of expressing the desire to lynch these so-called "domestic terrorists", who are in reality law-abiding citizens exercising their legal rights.

It is customary to hang traitors, and it's quite hard to call those who are associated with Ernest Hancock and the Arizona Viper Militia anything but.

Furthermore, one could make the arguments that cross-burners are simply exercising their right to religion. Of course, that is patently untrue.

[CloudFlare]

It is customary to hang traitors, and it's quite hard to call those who are associated with Ernest Hancock and the Arizona Viper Militia anything but.

Ahh, the Viper Militia. There's a name from the past. IIRC they were found guilty of...nothing. This was a prime example of post-OKC hysteria and overzealous prosecution. They were the forerunners of the recent "terrorist" cases like the Lackwanna 6, Miami 5 or whoever.

The Viper Militia was nothing more than a bunch of gun goofs who liked to shoot in the desert and hear big booms.

ETA II: I was wrong about the Vipers. They did plead guilty to at least some of the charges. Reading more, most who plead guilty were charged with having "destructive devices", aka homemade bombs, which they did. Only one was actually found guilty in court though.

ETA: Rereading your comment, I realize how disturbing it really is. Hancock is definitely rightwing and against anything Obama or liberal. He's probably a complete crank as well. But what can he possibly have done that deserves a charge or treason, a conviction and the death penalty?

If you read more about what Hancock did before the rally, it becomes clear that he was trying to prevent a panic or confrontation with the police. Who almost certainly notified the SS on what was going to happen.

Furthermore, one could make the arguments that cross-burners are simply exercising their right to religion. Of course, that is patently untrue.

Freedom of speech, more likely. Have we created a Department of Religion Approval in this country?

[CloudFlare]

Guns at political rally? Why did I never think to do that when King George came to Charleston? Oh hell the Citadel would have beaten the shit out of me.

Uhh, you would have had to your guns to protect yourself.

Those who would trample the 1st deserve to feel the full wrath of the 2nd.

[Yagathai]

I am a proud supporter of the second amendment, but bringing weapons, particularly loaded rifles to a political protest near the President of the United States, is ridiculously stupid.

Bringing a Loaded Assault Rifle to a political protest is just insane. Way past stupid. If advocates and members of private militias can not responsibly handle automatic firearms it is almost a given that the right will be taken away.

Semiautomatic! Semiautomatic! There's a world of goddamn difference.

Also, assault rifles is not a proper noun. Also also, it's an imprecise term and if you're a proud supporter of the Second Amendment (proper noun), you should know better.

The only place you should be showing off your firearms to the general public is a gun show, and even then most have rules about keeping them unloaded. A handgun on the hip is debatable, but possibly excusable. Rifles? No excuse. Loaded Assault Rifles? Offensively ridiculous.

Well, that's certainly an opinion, but the law doesn't support it and neither do a good large number of your fellow supporters of the Second Amendment. If it's my gun, I should be able to do with it as I please, no?

[Yagathai]

Uhh, you would have had to your guns to protect yourself.

Those who would trample the 1st deserve to feel the full wrath of the 2nd.

Well, honestly, first they'd feel the full wrath of a polite conversation, then a letter, then probably I'd file a lawsuit and pursue that as far as it will go. If I still feel unfairly muzzled, I'd consider alternate venues for my speech, and even if those turn up dry I'd really have to think long and hard before murdering someone with a gun.

[TrackerNeil]

I' also like to point out the irony of expressing the desire to lynch these so-called "domestic terrorists", who are in reality law-abiding citizens exercising their legal rights.

I don't have a comment on the "domestic terrorist" claims, but I must respond to your second point. Yes, these citizens may indeed have a legal right to carry firearms in whatever manner they did, but that doesn't mean there was not an intent to intimidate. There are methods by which one can make a threat without ever crossing the line into illegality, and I think these folks are doing just that. The message of intimidation others are receiving is, I think, exactly the message these gun-toters are intending to send. That doesn't make the gun-toters criminals, maybe, but it certainly makes them assholes in my book.

Edited to add: Go Barney Frank! These nuts do not merit respect, and they therefore should not receive it.

[Yagathai]

I don't have a comment on the "domestic terrorist" claims, but I must respond to your second point. Yes, these citizens may indeed have a legal right to carry firearms in whatever manner they did, but that doesn't mean there was not an intent to intimidate. There are methods by which one can make a threat without ever crossing the line into illegality, and I think these folks are doing just that. The message of intimidation others are receiving is, I think, exactly the message these gun-toters are intending to send. That doesn't make the gun-toters criminals, maybe, but it certainly makes them assholes in my book.

Edited to add: Go Barney Frank! These nuts do not merit respect, and they therefore should not receive it.

You're coming from outside the gun culture, Neil, and I think maybe you lack the perspective to judge these folks accurately. From my point of view, I see these people (less the ones doing it for the sake of a cheap radio stunt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/r..._n_262559.html) not trying to intimidate, but rather making a statement of defiance -- essentially, it's a statement of molon labes with pertinent props. In other words, it's not so much a "shut up or I'll kill you" as much as it is a "don't tread on me".

And yeah, I'm with you on Barney Frank. I love how incredibly dismissive he is of uncouth behaviour.

[Elrostar]

You're coming from outside the gun culture, Neil, and I think maybe you lack the perspective to judge these folks accurately. From my point of view, I see these people (less the ones doing it for the sake of a cheap radio stunt http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/r..._n_262559.html) not trying to intimidate, but rather making a statement of defiance -- essentially, it's a statement of molon labes with pertinent props. In other words, it's not so much a "shut up or I'll kill you" as much as it is a "don't tread on me".

Isn't there, in the statement "don't tread on me" an implicit threat of "or I'll kill you"? I mean, it's a snake, right? Which is going to bite you and poison you and cause you to die if you tread on it, right?

I'm just curious. Also wondering how the idea of a snake got to be seen as something good and righteous around the time of the Revolution. These were god-fearing people, and snakes are not historically seen as something good in the Christian tradition. Anyway, this is sort of a thread-jack, so I apologize.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Semiautomatic! Semiautomatic! There's a world of goddamn difference.

There sure is. Only morons ever use full auto and predictably won´t hit anything. Semiauto however.... :pirate: