Monday, August 17, 2009

If three people do it, they may think it's an organization...

Can you imagine fifty people a protest? Friends, they might think it's a movement.

UPDATE: Straight from the horse's mouth, here's the video of the cat with the gat.

93 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't get it. That is what? Two very public instances of the mind contorl chip FAIlING in guns. How is that possible in this day and age.

JS said...

I like it how they say "--and it's legal" like there's any doubt. Of course it legal!

Two things I hope for:
1. A lot more people start doing this.
2. That any complete wack job that thinks he's going to carry one and discharge it just for grins stays the f**k home.

KurtP said...

A movement, huh?

"You can get anything you want at Alice's resurant."

Jeffro said...

Mmmkay, but I don't want anything to do with the father rapers. Unless they're creating a nuisance.

Ken said...

Save me a seat on the Group W bench.

Rabbit said...

I dunno, I don't know if I trust CNN to not Photoshop those 8x10 glossys.

Nonetheless, I was pleased to see it was a "well-dressed African-American male" (as CNN reported)who obviously has excellent taste in small arms, irregardless of how much PSH ensues.

His high-and-tight grooming made me wonder if he's a Vet.


Regards,
Rabbit.

Anonymous said...

What goes unsaid, and especially here in Arizona, is that no one has any idea how many people were carrying concealed with permits to do so. I venture a guess that 4-10 times as many were there with guns that went unseen.

What worries me more is liberally biased reporters carrying microphones concealed or not and using fear tactics like they are doing with this issue! They are doing more damage to our country with the first amendment and there biased reporting than the people are doing by exercising the 2nd amendment.

Anonymous said...

People who need to display their guns in a peaceful public forum only show they lack something: intelligence, respect for others and selfishly promoting the deluded notion that fear can be overcome by carrying a gun. Except for peace officers only cowards, criminals and the weak carry guns in public.

While we do have the right to bear arms, we should only do so in the appropriate forum. To defend the country, to defend your family or person against attack; not to cause fear and intimidation when lacking
the brains to use more appropriate
methods -- gee, like maybe running for political office or organizing a real group protest -- to seek change. I guess the powerful NRA
isn't enough already.

Why don't these yahoos ship out to Afghanistan or Iraq and show us how tough they "really" are?

Anonymous said...

Response to "While we do have the right to bear arms, we should only do so in the appropriate forum. To defend the country, to defend your family or person against attack"

Apparently in your world you are only in danger when you are at home, or within shouting distance of a Police Officer.

Jenny said...

I confess to being of mixed feelings on this one. On the one hand, I love that the political ball has shifted enough to pro-RKBA that this is possible without the dear man getting thrown in the pokey.

On the other... God help us if once this catches on (and it is - the last protest I saw in AK was filled with open-carrying folk) - someone gets the bright idea to take some crowd control tips from the Bonus Marcher incident.

We've been piling up the powder kegs for a generation, and the wrong decision at a moment like this has the potential to be the spark that lights the fuse.

Like I said, I'm glad he can, support fully his right to do it, and honestly think it's probably a good sign so far as the "prove the spirit of resistance is still alive" thing goes.

... but it does seem to me the stakes are getting raised here.

Ed Foster said...

KurtP you stinker, you got there ahead of me!

Anonymous said...

Why does anyone need to carry a weapon on a city street? there is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588

Tam said...

Anon 3:27,

Jesus, do y'all ever mix the phrases up to make sound at least a little original?

Anonymous said...

Many free countries such as Switzerland, used to have a law requiring that people showing up to vote be armed.

A man carrying a weapon is a free man.

Anonymous said...

"Except for peace officers only cowards, criminals and the weak carry guns in public."

So, by your definition:

1. Judges are cowards for carrying guns.
2. Probation officers are cowards for carrying guns.
3. Politicians are cowards for carrying guns.
4. Movie stars are cowards for carrying guns.
5. The CPAs, soccer moms, electricians, bartenders, inter alia are cowards for carrying guns.

Nice work, Brady Bunch, you just called all those people, and many more, cowards. No wonder your side is getting beat and beat hard.

Shootin' Buddy

Anthony and Tiffany Stanley said...

Your side, my side, that's the real problem we face. We have a real knack for constantly looking for someone to label "them". After the fall of the Soviets, "them" became us. Red shirt, blue shirt, and now the new dark horse expansion team of upset outsiders; this epic battle of good v.s. evil stick is getting us into trouble again. The media conglomerates have us all wrapped up in this national penant race as a distraction to mask what the corporations that own them are doing everyday, around the world. They are focusing our unrest on eachother, and against OUR government, the only group powerful enough to help bring them in line. This isn't a republican, democrat, or independant thing. This isn't a sporting event with a superbowl every 4 years. When either side wins big, we all loose - except the multinational corporations that simply change thier direct deposit to the new team.

Dan said...

It sure makes the secret security's job much harder now because of stupid right-wing, no common sense, Republicans who are flaunting their personal rights that are out of context.

When the President gets assassinated, don't start crying, because the next time this stunt gets pulled, the guns in the crowd are going to be planned and aimed at him... thanks to a bunch of morons who think they are expressing themselves in order to attract attention like children.

Tam said...

Dude, he was carrying a carbine, not a tactical nuclear warhead. I can guarantee you that, even if he had been the kind of slavering yahoo that lives only in your imagination, he had zero percent chance of assassinating anybody.

Why don't you confine your commentary to issue on which you have the faintest grasp?

Anonymous said...

"this epic battle of good v.s. evil stick is getting us into trouble again."

Since when has it been a bad thing to defeat evil? Socialism is evil; it must be destroyed before it destroys us.

"When the President gets assassinated, don't start crying, because the next time this stunt gets pulled, the guns in the crowd are going to be planned and aimed at him"

Presidential assassians have always been Leftists. When Bush II was in office, the Left made "art" and even a movie about killing him.

The guns of the SS are already aimed at everyone in the crowd. If you do not think that a SS sniper was aiming at that guy's head, you are naive.

"thanks to a bunch of morons who think they are expressing themselves in order to attract attention like children"

There is nothing "childish" about exercising Constitutional rights (rights long denied African-Americans). Even a cursory reading of framing of the Constitution shows that the Framers thought this type of political express was a right, and the right thing to do.

Shootin' Buddy

crankylitprof said...

"...are flaunting their personal rights that are out of context."


Wait..rights have context now? I must have missed the memo changing the "inalienable" part.

If rights have context, then surely no one had their panties in a twist over confining protesters in "free speech zones"....right?

Anthony and Tiffany Stanley said...

Anonymous,

"The guns of the SS are already aimed at everyone in the crowd. If you do not think that a SS sniper was aiming at that guy's head, you are naive." I caught the SS reference, nice touch.

But, you are right that there surely was a sniper on the man with the carbine. And he did not fire, as the man was no threat to anyone.

"Since when has it been a bad thing to defeat evil? Socialism is evil; it must be destroyed before it destroys us." - The problem is in what 307 Million American induviduals think socialism is. Your ideas of what constitute socialsm and mine may be radically different. I am not a socialist by any means, but I did grow up enjoying the greatest socialist health care in America, the US military health system. That was, until it was largely "privatized" in the late 80s. We have 307 Million perspectives on the issue. The American republic that I took an oath to defend only works when we refuse to "make epic stands" aginst eachother. It may be romantic to put on a jersey, march out onto the field, subscribe to a fixed position and fight it out. But, in reality, we have done that once, and it was the bloodiest period on American soil. Compromise is hard work. Keeping informed on the issues in an environment where the corporate media conglomerates would rather have sensational stories than facts is hard.

Anthony and Tiffany Stanley said...

But, it is the hard work that the founders called us to when Franklin said that they had given us, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Blanca DeBree said...

These people need their guns to protect themselves from the socialism. Socialism like Medicare, Social Security, fire departments, police, highway departments, libraries, schools, food inspectors, and the evil evil healthcare.

Ken said...

These people need their guns to protect themselves from the socialism. Socialism like Medicare, Social Security, fire departments, police, highway departments, libraries, schools, food inspectors, and the evil evil healthcare.

Damn skippy.

Oh, wait...you were trying to be clever, weren't you?

That'll larn ye.

Anonymous said...

"But, in reality, we have done that once, and it was the bloodiest period on American soil. Compromise is hard work."

We did it because the South wanted to enslave fellow human beings. That was evil and the monuments to the sacrifice of the men of the North show us north of the Ohio that fighting evil is the right thing to do.

Compromise is easy, whether 1850 or at Munich, but it is also evil. Some of us will not comply; some of us want the government to have fair notice of that.

Shootin' Buddy

Guinness said...

"The guns of the SS are already aimed at everyone in the crowd. If you do not think that a SS sniper was aiming at that guy's head, you are naive."

And because he was only one of two, he was fairly easy to monitor. But suppose, as this article suggests, 20 or 30 like him show up sporting their favorite hardware. Will there be enough roof-top snipers to keep tabs on everyone? Inevitably, states that allow this may be relegated to seeing their president only on the television.

W. Sewell Ambiencee said...

Folks,

The rifle pictured in this article is NOT an assault weapon, no matter how many times that label is used. Assault weapons are automatic - not SEMI automatic. Assault teams hit the beaches with sub-machine guns. When Hinckley shot at President Reagan, out came the Uzi submachine guns from under the Secret Service's jackets. When Elian Gonzales was taken by US Govt agents to be repatriated to Cuba, the agents wielded MP5 (submachine guns). Submachine guns are full auto weapons - not semiauto. That means they fire a burst of shots or continuously, depending on the weapon. Semis fire once when the trigger is depressed; if you want another shot, you have to pull the trigger again.

The term 'semi-automatic assault weapon' is a misnomer used to demonize an entire class of rifle which has been used by hunters for more than 100 years. There literally is no such thing; assault teams do not use semi-autos. To be fair, their weapons are capable of semi-automatic fire, but what assault team leader would limit his/her people by outfitting them with semis? Would you ask the Navy SEALS to go in with semis?

This name game is the same tactic used by some in the abortion battle, too . . . the term 'partial birth abortion' is bandied about loudly and often perjoratively against that procedure. The point is to demonize one little slice of guns, or abortion, or whatever your favorite evil is. The slang term for it is 'salami tactic' - taking a slice at a time until the whole sausage is gone.

Both the Right and the Left are guilty. You demonize my guns today, and I take your tactic and turn it against you tomorrow on 'partial birth abortion,' and vice-versa. In other words, you wind up inventing the tactic that's ultimately used against you.

Yosemite Sam said...

"Inevitably, states that allow this may be relegated to seeing their president only on the television."

So if states pass a law that disallows carrying a gun, you honestly believe that potential killers will abide by this law?

Cops and the Secret Service HAVE TO assume that everyone in a crowd is a potential threat. EVERYONE. If they don't they WILL miss a bad guy.

Anthony and Tiffany Stanley said...

"We did it because the South wanted to enslave fellow human beings. That was evil and the monuments to the sacrifice of the men of the North show us north of the Ohio that fighting evil is the right thing to do.
"

Actually, in the south we say it wasn't about slavery at all. But rather about the abuses of the Federal Government imposing thier will from Washington over the soverenty of the states as the US Constitution pecribes. We go to great lengths to point out that the US Constitution specifically defines all powers not expressly granted to Congress are reserved to the States. Obviously, there was a problem with this interpretation and the blight of human enslavement. See what I mean? The absolutist path leads absolutely to destruction. For you, me, and everyone else within the blast radus.

Ken said...

Once again, I'd like to thank the slave power for giving states' rights a bad name.

anziulewicz said...

He's just auditioning for Fox News.

crankylitprof said...

"Inevitably, states that allow this may be relegated to seeing their president only on the television."

Do you promise? 'Cause I can turn that shit off and not even have to think about him that way.

No more motorcades tying up traffic, no more flight delays because the Won is flying in or out...

This sounds like a deal to me.

Anthony and Tiffany Stanley said...

"The term 'semi-automatic assault weapon' is a misnomer..."

You are correct. Thank you for pointing out this technical fact.

You are also right about the label becoming the cause. We have been conditioned to fight lables, and not to rationaly consider facts and issues. labels offer no room for maneuvor, it's always "Your either with us, or agin' us!" Truth is, we are all in this together, no matter the outcome.

I have got to go to work, but I would love to pick this up latter.

Anthony and Tiffany Stanley said...

"Once again, I'd like to thank the slave power for giving states' rights a bad name." But, that's the point, it dosen't matter the cause. Extremeism itself is the problem. Extremeism turns every issue into "right v.s. wrong" makes people "perfect or evil". It's the lazy way out. It is the tool of the very powerful over the badly informed, or apathetic.

Anonymous said...

What is funny is the rednecks out there are to stupid to realize that the Democrats are staging this to rally support for gun control. Our local organizer has been trying to find people to support this cause for weeks unfortunately he can't find any gun owners in Seattle willing to participate.

Tam said...

Anon 9:25,

"What is funny is the rednecks out there are to [sic] stupid..."

You're pretty funny, Sparky.

Anonymous said...

While I do believe strongly in the Second Amendment, I think it's ill advised to carry guns needlessly in very public, politically charged settings. The right to bear arms has always been under attack, which has resulted in some serious restrictions on that right (the Constitution notwithstanding). Carrying semi-automatic weapons to a Presidential rally is not the way to inspire public confidence in one's mental and emotional stability. I personally have no problem with it, but if it continues, it will likely result in further restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. Like it or not, we are still forced to live in a society that considers guns to be remnants of a more primitive age. Choose your battles more wisely !

Anonymous said...

It seems like the media is making a big deal out of something that is perfectly legal. There were police officers standing right next to the people carrying guns. I just don't see this as a problem other than an over reaction from the media and people who are afraid/hate guns. I know others will disagree with me but I figured I would practice my freedom of speech while I'm practicing my freedom of internet use haha.

Anonymous said...

To all those who think people who carry guns are "cowards", I'd have to disagree. I carry a concealed weapon for protecting me, my family, and those around me. I have also learned that it does make you a "coward" in the "macho" sense, because it allows you to quickly difuse a situation and walk away.

If someone picks a fight, I simply ignore them and move on. The consequences will be much worse if I "stood up" for myself.

It takes a bigger man to walk away with all lives spared. The ego may take a hit, but it's better than a bullet.

Anonymous said...

The timing of this is rather ironic given one Lynette Fromme was just released from prison after 34 years for supposedly doing the exact same thing, eh.

Us human rights activists remember her fondly; Squeaky is the Manson child, who, in her own wotds, merely waved an unloaded gun into then-president (Rethuglican Nixon bootlicker)Ford's general direction to raise awareness for world peace.

Charges were trumped up, the Establishment took guns from the good and gave them to the babykillers in Vietnam.

Vote Obama. Impeach Bushitler. Go Green. Cindy Sheehan for President.
knabiesc

theirritablearchitect said...

"He's just auditioning for Fox News."

And you are probably already on the payroll at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC or NBC.

Quit thinking you are clever, bitch.

WV: brinkl. Yes, we are on it, I think.

Anonymous said...

This isn't from anynomous... this is from Tony.


Mr. Anonymous "Coward" puts: "Except for peace officers only cowards, criminals and the weak carry guns in public."

Then puts this:

"While we do have the right to bear arms, we should only do so in the appropriate forum. To defend the country, to defend your family or person against attack;"

Have you not realized that could be anywhere??? You know you could get attacked besides being in your home from an intruder don't you??? Please don't contradict yourself anymore.

And you finish up with: "not to cause fear and intimidation when lacking
the brains to use more appropriate
methods -- gee, like maybe running for political office or organizing a real group protest -- to seek change. I guess the powerful NRA
isn't enough already."

If you get scared because someone is carrying a gun and not pointing it in your face or at anyone else, you have issues or paranoia. Quit being a baby, and that's for everyone else. You don't have to where a uniform to garnish a weapon. You are using your own fears and pushing it onto others. I will carry a gun in public, probably save your life, and then get arrested because you were scared for your life... not by the man attacking you but because you saw a weapon on myside (which ended up saving your life). I'm assuming that's how shit would go down with your anti gun disposition.

Anonymous said...

"It seems like the media is making a big deal out of something that is perfectly legal."

True. The bill of rights provides for such protections. It's perfectly legal to act like an asshole.

But they're still assholes.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, just to add, your not weak for carrying a sidearm. If you know you are no bruce lee but are an excellent marksman... hello, common sense. Only the fearful and weakminded state other people are weak for idiotic idealogical reasons. Such as scaring people because someone carrys an open public weapon...ooohhh fear the man who is not holding a weapon but is holdstered properly.

Anonymous said...

Here we go, another stupid post. So following the bill of rights written by the founding fathers is being an asshole. You over sensative, subjective, my way or the highway POV schmuck. Your the asshole for even thinking that. This kind of thinking is what's going to bring down our society... paranoia because of cowardice attitudes. Congrats, your included in the asshole list for following your 1st amendmant right! Hope someones robs you in public and no one does nothing because they are all "assholes"!!! Get the point!

Steve Skubinna said...

Holy crap, Tam, you left the lid off the can of Stupid Attractant!

Tam said...

It's all traffic from CNN...

Hey, and they vote, too! It's all starting to make sense to me now.

Kristopher said...

That damned vote thingy again.

Didn't anyone realize that voting was far more dangerous than any damned battle rifle?

Anonymous said...

"So following the bill of rights written by the founding fathers is being an asshole."

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. This applies to both the ridiculously over-armed clowns brandishing weapons 'cuz the 2nd amendment sez I kin', and the ratings-crazed media making a big deal about it 'cuz the 1st amendment sez I kin', as well as everyone expressing their opinions in this forum - even you.

Just because they/you CAN legally act like an asshole, that doesn't mean they/you should.

At best, making a grand display of carrying arms at a presidential forum is childishly provocative.

Yosemite Sam said...

"At best, making a grand display of carrying arms at a presidential forum is childishly provocative."

I rather think that is the point.

Remember the gay rights marches, Stonewall.... A lot of gun owners are saying that they're tired of being in the closet and are coming out.

Anonymous said...

"I rather think that is the point."

Fair enough - like I said before, they have the right to act like that too.

The difference with the gay rights movement is that gays still don't have a Constitutional amendment giving them equal rights (e.g. gay marriage). G.I. Joe has had the 2nd amendment since 1791.

Tam said...

Was GI Joe there, too?

I thought it was just Joe Public.

Huh. The things I learn from the intertubes...

Yosemite Sam said...

Well, Anon 12:53

1.) Rights are for all Americans not just "G.I. Joes"

Be that as it may, gun rights have been under assault in this country for a century and the 2nd Amendment has been all but ignored until relatively recently. In certain parts of the country(eg. New Jersey, Massachusetts), gun owners are treated like second class citizens and have to stay "in the closet" about their gun ownership lest they be treated like they are insane or worse.

Many are very tired of this and are ready to "act up".

and

2.) That a right to gay marriage is even being talked about shows the effectiveness of acting out. It was unthinkable even 10 years ago.

Rabbit said...

re: Anthony and Tiffany Stanley:

In the event that the Secret Service had at least one individual sniper, if not a team, designating each of the two persons legally carrying longarms at the location and ready to fire upon those individuals, I humbly suggest you Google "Lon Horiuchi" to learn how the murder of a non-threatening person, however complicit in the activities around them, can vilify a career.

There are laws regarding 'menacing', at least in Texas. Carrying a rifle slung, muzzle down, generally does not qualify as such in the real world. Government representatives who shoot non-menacing citizens run the risk of what people call 'unintended consequences', which might be another search for you as well.

I'm disabled. I can't run away if trouble pops up in my lap, although I generally can see it coming from a distance and I avoid it. I carry a means of personal self-defense daily, but sometimes I don't consider my pistol enough, and I wouldn't discount the possibility of carrying a rifle in polite society.

Regards,
Rabbit.

Buck said...

Damn Tam, I go back to work after two months of leave and now I'm missing all the fun.

Anonymous said...

I'm here, I'm armed, you better get used to it!

Shootin' Buddy, who is looking absolutely fabulous today.

Anonymous said...

Yosemite Sam:

I'm not disagreeing with you, nor am I contesting anyone's rights under the 1st or the 2nd (or any other) amendment.

I question the judgment of those going around politically and emotionally charged events, heavily armed. It shows poor judgement, imho. It's a dumb idea.

It will be a shame if one of these well-intentioned simpletons gets shot dead by the Secret Service, but it won't be a surprise. It also won't necessarily be a reason to rally round the 2nd amendment, just because someone was dumb enough to act in such a provocative way as these people are doing. After all, the Secret Service not only has the right to bear arms too, but unlike these 'demonstrators', and I use that term very loosely, the Secret Service actually has a reason to.

Caleb said...

I noticed you had a link in the "blogs" section on CNN today.

This whole thread rotflols my copters.

Yosemite Sam said...

"It will be a shame if one of these well-intentioned simpletons gets shot dead by the Secret Service, but it won't be a surprise."

Then that would be murder if they are not threatening or harming anyone.

Why are you resorting to an ad-hominen argument to address these demonstrators? Many of the people I know who feel like this are far from simpletons. In fact they are more the opposite. Most are radical libertarians who are extremely well read and highly educated.

Please get the point. It isn't to rally around the 2nd Amendment or to convert people to the cause. It is to assert what they feel is a fundamental right and they could care less whether you agree or not.

They will assert it regardless.

It might not be the tactic I would use, but I can see why they feel it to be necessary to act in this manner.

Anonymous said...

Yosemite:

You're right - I should not call them stupid simpletons; I don't know them. I apologize for my poor choice of words.

I think what they are DOING is stupid, inappropriate, childish, and contributing to the problem, not toward a solution. I realize that sometimes otherwise smart people do dumb things.

They may or may not be stupid, I don't know. What they are doing, though, in my humble opinion, is patently dumb. To many people, what they are doing is an implied act of violence, not protest, and that's a problem. One person's protester is another person's potential terrorist...or loony. And in our society, the loonies don't wear name tags. That wouldn't matter if loonies couldn't get their hands guns, but they can. That's another fact of the real world and the high price of our bill of rights. So, to some people - many people - these armed 'protesters' represent an implied threat, whether they intend it or not. The fact that this doesn't appear to be apparent to them, or perhaps just isn't important, brings me to question their judgment, if not their intelligence.

More than anything, though, I think we as a people need to communicate better and more often, and not by brandishing firearms in public places, but by talking.

Like this.

theirritablearchitect said...

"...The difference with the gay rights movement is that gays still don't have a Constitutional amendment giving them equal rights (e.g. gay marriage)..."

Guess what, you want those equal rights? Here's a clue, quit looking toward the fucking gummint for affirmation on the issue.

Get it?

If you are too dense to get it, I can elaborate, but it's best that you figger out the specifics for yourself. The road to enlightenment, and all that stuff.

Anonymous said...

"I can elaborate, but it's best that you figger out the specifics for yourself."

Enlighten me, please. I'm very curious.

Ken said...

To many people, what they are doing is an implied act of violence, not protest, and that's a problem.

I am not an Objectivist, but I think there is a legitimate question as to whether that point of view deserves sanction.

Anonymous said...

"...I think there is a legitimate question as to whether that point of view deserves sanction."

I find this statement ambiguous. It seems obvious to me that many people feel threatened in the presence of firearms, because their presence implies violence. After all, isn't it the implied violence of firearms that provide their strongest deterrent? An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry, and all that?

Is it not also apparent that access to guns by the mentally unstable (a.k.a. 'loonies') is a given? Virginia Tech, for example?

Personally, I've never been as concerned about the government coming after my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as I have been concerned about another Seung-hui Cho doing so.

I happen to think that given enough hard work and commitment, we can fix the government, in time.

You can't fix crazy.

theirritablearchitect said...

"...I happen to think that given enough hard work and commitment, we can fix the government, in time..."

Niave, to a degree almost beyond belief.

"...Enlighten me, please. I'm very curious..."

The short of it, neuter your government, and your problem is solved.

Get it now?

What YOU are getting at is tantamount to asking for permission, in every way. What thou givest, it can most surely take away.

Think about it, really hard.

Yosemite Sam said...

"More than anything, though, I think we as a people need to communicate better and more often, and not by brandishing firearms in public places, but by talking."

The problem is that when people talk nicely, they are ignored.

The way I look at it, we have been talking nicely for going on 50 years. But, year after year, peaceful, law abiding gun owners have been demonized, attacked and made to feel sub-human.
We see it every day.

So it doen't surprise me when people have had enough and don't really give a damn when CNN gets it's panties in a twist when someone is carrying a carbine at a rally.
In fact, the point is to get CNN's panties in a twist. To rub their face in it, so to speak. Maybe when politicians and the people that support them get it in their heads that yes, there is a right to own and bear arms, then we can have a friendly conversation about the bad old days when people irrationally feared a mere tool.

Gregg said...

So, let me get this straight. Some of the of the people commenting here, noobs, have a problem with people open carrying long arms. Some of them appear to agree with the sentiment that it "chills free speech" and intimidates the sheep.

What about the Black Panthers outside polling places during the presidential election? What about the union muscle being used against people at the recent "town halls"? Is coercive force used by certain segments of society acceptable? If so then why is it unacceptable to be prepared to resist that force?

These people have been peaceful with holstered and/or slung weapons. The Black Panthers had clubs in their hands, at least in the pics I have seen. Thankfully the gentleman with the AR was black thus eliminating the ability to scream racism.

Ken said...

You can't fix crazy.

Ironically, you just hit a 9-iron pretty close to my point, though probably not in the way you intended.

A firearm in the possession of the law-abiding should no more imply violence directed at the equally law-abiding observer than a multitool, a hammer, a screwdriver, or an automobile (by far the most dangerous implement of the five, in the wrong hands).

Short answer: "It's a problem, but it's not my problem." (Codicil: Pray do not try to make it my problem.)

Where I'm going with this is that it's comparatively easy to pathologize behavior one doesn't approve of...or for that matter, thoughts one doesn't approve of, as leftist social scientists have been trying to "prove" about conservatives since 1950 and the Adorno study.

Is it not also apparent that access to guns by the mentally unstable (a.k.a. 'loonies') is a given? Virginia Tech, for example?

Did you notice what was absent at Virginia Tech, and just about everywhere else some loser decides to make his fifteen minutes of fame his last fifteen minutes of existence? A distinct lack of armed non-loony citizens, for instance?

Is your point that armed citizens carrying openly make you nervous? Actually, I can understand that. Once upon a time, it did me too. But I took up shooting, I started spending time around armed people, and I hardly notice any more.

Personally, I've never been as concerned about the government coming after my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as I have been concerned about another Seung-hui Cho doing so.

When you say "the government," which government did you have in mind? How many people were killed by governments (mostly their own) in the 20th Century, and how many by all the Seung-hui Chos you can add up?

I happen to think that given enough hard work and commitment, we can fix the government, in time.

I think it depends on the meaning of "hard work and commitment" and "fix." Remember, the other side is busy buying votes with your money, and frankly neither of the major parties trusts you to govern yourself.

Tam said...

"I question the judgment of those going around politically and emotionally charged events, heavily armed."

Heavily armed? Dude, all he had was a poodle-shooter.

"It seems obvious to me that many people feel threatened in the presence of firearms..."

Uh, do you cower under the coolers when a cop walks through the produce section? No? So wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "Many people feel threatened in the presence of firearms that aren't accompanied by shiny boots and badges"?

Anonymous said...

"Niave, to a degree almost beyond belief."

Certainly less naive than thinking you can 'neuter' the government without serious negative consequences. Life just isn't that simple. Neutering the government oversight of the financial industry in the name of 'free markets' was the cause of the current financial crisis. Talk about naive.

And I'm not talking about asking for permission; I'm just talking about people behaving like a civilized adult.

Am I also naive to expect that?

---------------------

"The problem is that when people talk nicely, they are ignored."

I'm talking nicely and I seem to be getting a fair amount of attention, no? ;-) To the contrary, I think when people DON'T talk nicely, they get plenty of the wrong kind of attention - and deservedly so - and the discussion just implodes.

More communication, less ideology.

perlhaqr said...

Ken said about what I was going to. The existence of guns in the hands of loonies like Cho are why guns in the hands of the law-abiding are good things.

Though I will concede that the usual argument about the police only being minutes away when seconds count doesn't actually apply at a political rally being watched over by Secret Service snipers.

Nevertheless, that said, it's completely orthogonal. I realize that this may be an odd thing to some of the people reading here who are, shall we say, less than enamoured of firearms, but there are those of us for whom the act of putting on a gun is on par with the act of putting on a pair of pants. It's just something one does before leaving the house.

Tam said...

"Neutering the government oversight of the financial industry in the name of 'free markets' was the cause of the current financial crisis."

Do you even have a filter between Daily Kos and your worldview? (Speaking of "More communication, less ideology"...)

perlhaqr said...

Anonymous 4:05, I'm sorry, but if you think the financial market was unregulated, or anything approaching a "free market", you've got to do some reading before coming to these debates.

Just to get you up to speed, do similar reading about health care. The medical industry in this country isn't in any way, shape, or form, an unregulated system either.

Anonymous said...

My, how popular I've become! ;-)

Re: Black Panters, et al.

I'm old enough to remember the Black Panthers and the SDS as well. They were just as objectionable and in the end ineffective as anyone else who tries to use real or implied violence to coerce. Actions are more important than ideology. The Black Panthers, no matter how righteous their cause, were assholes too.

Re: Guns in the hands of the law-abiding.

I don't have a problem with guns in the hands of the law-abiding, but I do have a problem with the argument that requires guns in the hands of the broader populace in order to limit the impact of guns in the hands of the crazies. The 2nd Amendment does not require anyone to carry a gun, and it shouldn't. This argument requires an armed populace, whether they like it or not, and it implies that the majority of people WANT to carry firearms. Some of us don't WANT to live in Kennesaw, GA, as nice as I'm sure it is there. (I used to work with a guy who lived there and he assured me it was....)

Re: heavily armed vs. poodle-shooter.

Well, as much as I dislike poodles, in this case I think size really matters. He LOOKS heavily armed. ;-)

Re: Cops & guns.

Cops are screened, tested, trained, qualified, and generally known to be sane. You can tell by looking at a cop that he's probably not crazy, because he's wearing a badge, although there have been some notable, rare exceptions.

Ken said...

I don't have a problem with guns in the hands of the law-abiding, but I do have a problem with the argument that requires guns in the hands of the broader populace in order to limit the impact of guns in the hands of the crazies. The 2nd Amendment does not require anyone to carry a gun, and it shouldn't. This argument requires an armed populace, whether they like it or not, and it implies that the majority of people WANT to carry firearms.

It does nothing of the sort. It merely requires that those who do "WANT to carry firearms" be able to do so without official infringement.

Anonymous said...

Tam,

I don't read the Daily Kos. I form my own opinions, as I assume you do too.

I have been an active investor for years, and I understand the derivatives markets well. Many of the derivatives that caused the financial markets to seize up last September, and drive the overnight LIBOR rate to go negative, were completely unregulated. I'm not saying that the entire market was unregulated, but the derivatives were - and this was fundamentally a derivatives bubble. Mortgages were the underlying assets, that's all. Without the derivatives, like CDO's and CDS's, the economy would not be in this mess. That's why Lehman folded.

As for health care (we really are covering the globe aren't we?), I work with health care businesses (EMR, etc), and I understand their FDA regulatory environment. But it's health INSURANCE that really needs the kick in the butt, IMHO.

For example, years ago my daughter was injured in a high school sporting event. She couldn't breathe so they called an ambulance (she was fine later). Insurance denied the claim because we didn't get a referral.

Now that's messed up...but a relatively minor incident. Many if not most bankruptcies in the U.S. are directly or indirectly related to health care crises, and the lack of adequate coverage.

On the one hand, people can say I'm naive for not being afraid of the government - after all, that's a popular if somewhat paranoid idea lately. But on the other hand, some might call it naive to think there's a simple solution like neutering the government and giving everyone a firearm that will solve all our problems.

I don't think life is that simple.

Anonymous said...

Ken,

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear - I wasn't purporting that the 2nd actually requires gun ownership. I'm saying that the argument that we can control situations like Virginia Tech by allowing everyone to carry a firearm is not only unrealistic, but it requires an armed populace. And that was certainly not the intention of the 2nd amendment either.

I think people have just as much right to be free of the threat of crazies and cranks with firearms as they do to own and carry firearms themselves. Everyone's rights are equal.

Ken said...

I think people have just as much right to be free of the threat of crazies and cranks with firearms as they do to own and carry firearms themselves.

How exactly do you propose to be free of the threat of crazies and cranks with firearms?

theirritablearchitect said...

"Neutering the government oversight of the financial industry in the name of 'free markets' was the cause of the current financial crisis."

Talk about stupid.

You haven't studied economics, obviously.

Get an education on the subject, moron, then we can talk.

{walks away, laughing}

theirritablearchitect said...

"...Cops are screened, tested, trained, qualified, and generally known to be sane..."

With apologies to certain individuals known to be good friends with our hostess, but, you've not been paying attention to the news for that last eight or ten years, have you?

Go look for a guy named David Codrea, and look at his "Only Ones" column.

Sane.

Right.

Gregg said...

"Remember the Black Panthers"????

Yeah, I didn't think that you were born yesterday. Please note that I was referring to events within the past 12 months. A quick google search will likely net you pics from LAST November showing billy club armed Black Panthers outside polling places.

Oddly enough you (referring to mr Anony Mous) want the .gov to step in to "fix" what they broke (or "fixed" if you use a different definition for fixed).

Anonymous said...

Re: IrritableA:
"Get an education on the subject, moron, then we can talk."

How about when you can talk like a grownup, then we can talk?

Re: "Oddly enough you ... want the .gov to step in to "fix" what they broke..."

No I don't. I want us to.

Thanks to everyone for engaging in the conversation, but I'm going to sign off. Last night I posted a comment here that was apparently censored for no good reason. We'll see if this one gets through.

My comment, though, was that I think that rights such as those afforded by the 2nd amendment come with responsibilities. Those who wish to preserve those rights have a responsibility to defend them. That means doing more than just talk and act menacing. So, it's up to you to come up with the means to guarantee that crazies and cranks don't get their hands on firearms, or risk facing limitations on those rights.

Because people like me don't care if the 2nd amendment is constrained or even repealed. Frankly, I think it's sad that in some folks view of the world they just can't feel safe unless they can carry a gun around.

Some of us, many of us in fact, don't need guns at all.

Tam said...

"Last night I posted a comment here that was apparently censored for no good reason."

That would have been technical difficulties on your end, then.

I've never deleted a single comment on this blog that wasn't from some WoW Gold comment spammer in Shanghai. I even left the ones from creepy stalkers up.

I won't bother addressing the rest of it, since you are "signing out".

Anonymous said...

Tam,

Thanks - I'll take your word for it, but the timing seemed peculiar, and the Internet connection at my end is very stable...it's how I make my living.

Maybe it was Firefox that didn't like what I had to say. ;-)

Anyway, thanks again for the mostly civil discussion.

the pistolero said...

So, it's up to you to come up with the means to guarantee that crazies and cranks don't get their hands on firearms, or risk facing limitations on those rights.

Some of us figured it out a long-ass time ago: if those people are so forking dangerous that they allegedly can't be trusted with guns, then keep their crazy asses locked up from the rest of us, because they probably couldn't be trusted with the innocuous butter knife either. But apparently anti-gunners don't have any problem with letting said crazies and cranks walk free and predate at will.

the pistolero said...

...with whatever they can get their hands on, as long as it isn't an eeeeevil guuuun!

theirritablearchitect said...

"...How about when you can talk like a grownup, then we can talk?"

{Yawn}

Pencilneck, get this straight, what you are getting at, what's at the heart of your schtick, and beyond your pithy comment, is a fight to the death, AND I KNOW IT, even if you don't.

I'm completely willing to see you to the end of it.

Are you?

theirritablearchitect said...

"...thanks again for the mostly civil discussion."

Yeah, from HER end.

You wouldn't know civility if someone hit you in the face with a history book.

Jeezis. This thread is just dripping cognitive dissonance.

Mike W. said...

even if he had been the kind of slavering yahoo that lives only in your imagination, he had zero percent chance of assassinating anybody.

Thank you Tam! I love folks getting their panties in a bunch despite the fact that this guy wasn't a threat to anyone, including the President.

Both the local police and the Secret Service did not consider him a threat. If the Secret Service were at all concerned it would have been obvious.

Ken said...

So, it's up to you to come up with the means to guarantee that crazies and cranks don't get their hands on firearms, or risk facing limitations on those rights.

No, it isn't. I reject the notion of collective guilt/collective responsibility categorically.

One could try to impose it, if one cared to...in the sense that "ye maun try," at any rate.

Anonymous said...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/ernest_hancock_viper_militia_gun_obama_event.php

theirritablearchitect said...

**crickets**

Anonymous said...

"You haven't studied economics, obviously."

"Get an education on the subject, moron, then we can talk."

FYI - this evening, "60 Minutes" presented an article describing exactly what I was talking about, namely Credit Default Swaps (CDS'). The article supports my assertion, and despite your uninformed comments to the contrary.

I sincerely suggest you should consider your own advice (but I'll omit the "moron" epithet)