Email List
Most Popular This Week
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Picture of the Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- Bradley Manning is Off Limits at SF Gay Pride Parade, but Corporate Sleaze is Embraced
- Study: Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide Linked to Cancer, Autism, Parkinson's
- Everything Is Rigged: The Biggest Price-Fixing Scandal Ever
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
Popular content
Today's Top News
Guns That Talk
It's like truth or dare. And it's legal.
Get your permit or whatever and you, too, can bring an assault rifle to the next presidential speech you attend. There's nothing the police can do — amazing! If only the Democrats, back when George Bush was president, had known there was a safe, legal way to protest presidential policy and register discontent with the direction the country was headed. Can you imagine?
I ponder the phenomenon of gun speech — the amplified malevolence of the inarticulate — and hope, pray that it fizzles out quickly in its current manifestation: as a presence at town hall meetings on health care, at appearances by President Obama, at any random venue in which the nation's future is being discussed. I fear, however, that this is going to catch on, and if it does, well . . . the line in the sand has been drawn. At what point did public sanity cease to be a value?
Consider what life was like, oh, let's say five years ago. Here's a slice of news from July 4, 2004:
Nicole and Jeff Rank were arrested in Charleston, W.Va. — handcuffed, hustled away, charged with trespassing — because they were wearing T-shirts that said "Love America, Hate Bush" on the grounds of the state capitol on the day George Bush was scheduled to make a speech there. The Charleston Gazette further reported that those who applied for tickets to hear Bush's speech "were required to supply their names, addresses, birth dates, birthplaces and Social Security numbers."
That was then: "Free speech zones" were the norm; protesters were routinely whisked out of sight at every Bush appearance, even though, you know, we have a First Amendment and all.
This is now: A dozen guys with guns gathered outside a convention center in Phoenix on Monday as President Obama spoke. At least two of them had assault rifles slung over their shoulders. "Phoenix police said the men carrying guns at Monday's event did not need permits, as the state of Arizona has an ‘open carry' law," the U.K. Telegraph reported. "No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested."
A few days earlier, in Portsmouth, N.H., a man with a pistol strapped to his leg, holding a sign that read "It is time to water the tree of liberty," stood outside the local high school where Obama addressed a town hall meeting on health care. Another man was, in fact, arrested in Portsmouth that day because he had a loaded, unlicensed gun in his parked truck.
And, oh yeah, on Aug. 5, at a town hall meeting sponsored by Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, at a supermarket in Douglas, Ariz., a guy carrying a holstered pistol beneath his armpit was escorted off the premises by police when the weapon fell to the floor and bounced as he bent over. He wasn't arrested.
This phenomenon has several layers of tangled complexity: The first concerns the motives of the gun toters. Why would they bring a lethal weapon to a public event? Surely not out of fear for their personal safety. (If you're that scared, just stay home, OK?) They're obviously making a point. The one I'm getting is: See this, punk? I'm not going to kill you, but I could. Yammer all you want, but just be aware that I'm the serious one here. (Those whose weapons were concealed may have been making the same point, but only for their own reassurance of self-worth.)
More troubling and puzzling is the official nonchalance with which these incidents are being met. Considering that, in the Bush era, security personnel at every level were quick to find laws that superseded free speech whenever the president showed his face in public, how can lethal firepower — more dangerous than a T-shirt — be tolerated in the vicinity of the president of the United States?
Is it that we fear words and ideas more than inarticulate rage? Is it that there's a soft spot in the American heart for racist simmer? Do armed he-men exhibitionists require maternal coddling? Have we forgotten that four American presidents have been assassinated? Have we crossed the line that separates debate and disagreement from civil war?
Just asking. I don't think we have, but I do think we could. Guns are, indeed, speech: Carry one and you can't help but make an aggressive statement about what you believe and what you are capable of doing. A gun that goes off is something else again, however. It hardly matters whether the firing is accidental or intentional, because the consequences always have the potential to eclipse, tragically, the limited intentions — the "speech" — of the shooter.
My prayer is that we find the courage to grope for our common future together, and that the invisible infrastructure of public respect remains intact. This means we must check our weapons, but not our ideas, as we enter the debate.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
85 Comments so far
Show AllRobert C. Koehler,
Those scary, scary men!
What I'm really afraid of is much more dangerous than armed citizens. It's your car. It kills 40,000 people a year. You're constantly trying to kill me with it by passing within mere feet of me at a closure rate of 100 miles per hour (50 plus 50 = 100mph closure rate.)
Why are you endangering me? You could just stay home!
Let's take your car away from you. I want cradle to grave perfect safety. I don't care how many of my rights the government takes away from me, I don't want you to be able to run over your fellow citizens who you disagree with by driving that two-thousand pound weapon. It's a macho thing anyway to blow exhaust into the air, melting the poles. Just take the bus.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
"Just take the bus."
Very good advice! I fully encourage use of public transt, or consider a motor scooter - I ride a fully-electic version.
But as far as your comparison of cars to guns, aren't you overlooking the fact that the only useful purpose for the guns of the type brought to these demonstrations is for killing other human beings?
So, what other message are these gun-packing protestors sending, except "disagree with me, and I might kill you". It's that simple.
I agree with you pjd412.
Their intent is intimidation. And they are probably Faux News idiots who would have done the same thing if McCain had not conceded gracefully as he did.
But keeping only the police state armed has been a frightening experience these past eight years. I walked in a protest in 2003/4 against bush where all I had was my dick in my hand vs armies of mounted soldier/police. They were lined up on the street in front of us, not to protect public safety, but to intimidate peaceful protesters and only to protect corporate buildings.
We were peaceful protesters, but we felt the dark shadow of tyranny looming over us. They did not bother the group of "God wants you to support president Bush," instead, choosing to focus solely on us. The corporations want to keep the people divided into left right, red and blue states. We've got to compromise. Guns for free speech. They actually go together quite nicely if we will frame the fight as a fight against crooked CEO's and Bankers.
My absurd comparison of guns and cars was just to provoke discussion. Obviously, in normal times, you don't want loose cannons roaming the streets like some sort of "Mad Max" apocalyptic movie. But these are not normal times, and we have to find a way, through tools given us by the founders, to force the issue within the law.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Gimme a break. Nobody driving a car is trying to make a statement, like the people with guns at public events are trying to do.
"Gimme a break. Nobody driving a car is trying to make a statement, like the people with guns at public events are trying to do."
No? What about a guy aggressively driving a huge 4X4 on the pavement with huge off-road tires by himself? Tailgating. "Speed up or I might run you over." What about a guy driving a Hummer at 8mpg by himself? Is he getting ready to enter a war with the thing, or is he just making a statement? "My life is more important than yours, so I drive with heavy armor."
What about a limousine or a sports car? People make statements all the time with automobiles. They hit the gas and cut you off, not because it is necessary for "just transportation" but to say: "Don't screw with me, or I might ram you."
I agree these gun nuts are making statements. "You've watered down health reform by caving in to Big Pharma, now don't try to take my gun rights also. That's where I draw the line."
And I applaud it. If the left is just going to whine on keyboards without doing anything effective, then we should coalesce with the far right and pare this corporate government back to where is was in the 1700's.
The right to free assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances does not say you have to be unarmed in a free-speech cage two miles away from the event. Fear of the people is a good thing.
The time for sitting at home on Prozac is over.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
"What about a guy driving a Hummer at 8mpg by himself?"
Or Glenn Beck having his SUV idle outside his studio all night in 'celebration' of Earth Hour.
Your arguments use flawed logic.
First you are comparing one object whose primary purpose is as a weapon, to another object whose primary purpose is transportation. Most people killed by cars are done so accidently. Most people killed by guns are done so intentionally.
Unless you are paranoid you have to realize that the person in the other car is NOT trying to kill you. They have a vested interest in not hitting you using their car. An accident at those speeds would most likely be fatal to both of you. Aside from an accident you have nothing to fear from that person.
On the other hand, a person with a gun can shoot and kill you while suffering no physical damage to themselves. That happens every day.
You say the other person is endangering you by driving so they should just stay home. By your logic you are equally endangering them so you should stay home.
Here is the second amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Gun lovers always concentrate on the second half of the amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". What about the first part of the amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," A militia is defined as "civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army". Where is the "regulation" and training of this militia. Shouldn't formal militia training be mandatory, and then that trained person be required to be called upon at any time, day or night to defend the country like was done during the Revolutionary war?
The second amendment to me appears not just to be just a right, but also a duty. People wandering around public meetings carrying guns happily professing their right to bear arms, while forgetting to mention their duty to be in a militia, really don't impress me much.
"People... happily professing their right to bear arms, while forgetting to mention their duty to be in a militia, really don't impress me much."
And it is required to be a "well-regulated" one too! Hmm... "well regulated" Sound's kind of socialistic!
In normal times, I would agree with you. But these are not normal times. These are the times of domestic armies like Northcom, DEA, (domestic war on drugs) BAFT, DHS, FEMA prisons, pilotless drones on the border, scores of intelligence agencies turned loose on the citizens..... and maybe soon, domestic blackwater units.
Yes I agree, the intent of the second amendment was to form town militias. But with privately owned and stored weapons. The Minute Men all kept their arms at home. We on the left have just got to change our gun aversion temporarily in this trying time. We have a right to protect our towns from Multinational terrorism. We need to pass resolutions in our town assemblies to reject items shipped in from wage-slave colonies like China and India. Samuel Adams, Local assemblyman of the Boston Town Assembly, did this and the "Dartmouth" was prohibited from offloading it's tea by twelve armed men sent by his order. The royal governor, Hutchinson was livid and continually tried to dissolve the body.
Pretty soon, most of the jobs in the USA will be government jobs. And that is unsustainable. Already it's reached a state of us vs. them. A state of government worker sense of entitlement. Real jobs are being lost at the rate of half a million a month! How long can this go on before we are all homeless? We can't afford this huge corrupt government anymore.
It doesn't matter who specifically is riding on the back of the beast Corp/Gov right at this instant. (bush or O) We have to starve this beast before it gets any bigger.
The Far Lunatic Right's plan is to keep raiding the general fund until there is nothing left for social programs. Social Security comes from the same fund as does Pipeline wars for India (Afganistan.) These seemingly disparate actions are all connected.
TJ
"The government which governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
Thomas
You are at it again. Professing your opinion to a fellow Patriot without listening to what they actually said.
No one was saying they had an aversion to guns is this particular discussion thread, they were just saying that the Tories to the right want the gun rights guaranteed in the Constitution without the responsibilities demanded in that same fine document.
They do the same with the first amendment. They use our guaranteed right to free speech to spread out and out lies. What they do is no different than yelling fire in a crowded theater. With free speech comes the responsibility to honestly inform your fellow citizens and discuss matters sincerely, not to spread lies and unwarranted fears.
Sincerely
Your dearest adversary
John
"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams
Hello John,
Good post and points. Yes I gathered that. But what I am trying to develop here, is a realization that the second amendment "responsibilities" as you call them, apply during a normally functioning government.
We don't have that right now. This government is unresponsive to the people and has been hijacked by the Fortune 500; ergo signals are being sent by the far right that they aren't going to accept an attempt by the Fed to disarm their persons or to infringe on the right to "bear" arms. And baby, they are Bearing Arms, aren't they?
There is a time, my friend, for beating plowshares into swords, and that time is fast approaching.
As to free speech: A lie is a very subjective thing. The first amendment requires that the press be able to print or air anything they like at all. If they are printing or airing falsehoods, then they will be subject to the consequences of the market, which is why most of the Main Stream Media is going bankrupt. Most of the papers in the US are going under. They lied to us about WMD, and a lot of us cancelled our TV altogether in favor of the truth found on those "darn internets."
Be careful John, in setting yourself up as the sole arbitrator of what is, and what is not, a lie. Better to err on the side of allowing "unfettered free speech" including lies that we can debunk here, than to chill the intent of the first and second amendments. Yelling "Fire" in a theater, is not an essay. It's a single word of panic that has nothing to do with the free political opinions on the internet. If untruths or misconceptions are parroted, say for example on Faux News, we can educate those who were duped by that network when they get tired of being robbed and cheated. The power of the 1776 revolution was the power of the press. The power of the internet revolution is that everyone now has the means to be heard.
In the Constitutional Convention of 1788:
"On February 6 [1788}, [Samuel] Adams submitted another amendment, foreshadowing some of the measures that were soon added to the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. It said, "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience;or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms......" "Adam's one-sentence amendment contained elements of what became the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution."
From "Samuel Adams A Life" by Ira Stoll 2008
Recall that in response to Shay's rebellion we said: "Let them take Arms".
Sincerely, as always,
Your faithful pupil and brother in arms,
TJ
"We on the left have just got to change our gun aversion temporarily in this trying time. We have a right to protect our towns from Multinational terrorism."
I agree with you 100%. While I don't own a gun (yet), I and several of my friends find ourselves at odds with the rest of our left and liberal associates because of our belief that citizens need to be able to legally possess anything and everything that law enforcement can possess. The "war" on (some) drugs militarized the police and pretty much gave them carte blanche to do whatever they think necessary to get the evildoers. Not a week goes by when I don't hear about the SWAT team kicking in a person's door at 3:00 AM because they got a report that the person (ooops, sorry, wrong address!) grew and sold cannabis. I'm of the mind that when ANYONE kicks in my front door, they or I am going to die in the subsequent struggle, badge or no badge. Until the police state of consciousness in which we find ourselves comes to an end, I think we do need to arm ourselves.
And just how, dear Thomas, is keeping guns in our houses going to prevent terrorists from flying planes into nuclear reactors?
J4zonian August 23rd, 2009 4:03 pm said:
"And just how, dear Thomas, is keeping guns in our houses going to prevent terrorists from flying planes into nuclear reactors?"
I'm glad you asked that question. Nothing can stop that. The containment buildings are only specified to withstand impact of a B707 which is half the weight of later B747's. Thousands of B747's still are airborne. Only one mistake will make the downwind area states uninhabitable for 600 years.
The inescapable conclusion we must draw, is that civilian nuclear plants are unsafe, just from the threat of Earthquake or Tornado alone. They should all be shut down and decommissioned. Residential Rooftop Solar in the southern states is cheaper and safe.
But Residential guns are not a solution to all that ills the world. They are a historical right of all North Americans, even before there was a United States (back to at least 1610 Jamestown.) There is a reason for that right being cherished, even to this very day.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
cherished...Hmmm.
Not the word that comes to my mind, in light of the tens of thousands of people killed by them every year--and don't give me any GDKP;PKP crap, because most of those people would simply not be dead if a gun hadn't been available. Drive-by stabbings and school yard, post-office axe murders just couldn't equal those numbers no matter how hard we tried. Not to mention the countless other crimes and intimidations guns are used for every year. Hunting to provide food, yeah, maybe. Maybe. But non-violence is a far better protection against government, and the world would obviously be a better place if handguns and assault weapons didn't exist. The only reason they do in such numbers in the US is out of racist, misogynist anti-life fear and rage that will not tolerate any limits.
Slavery, genocide and domestic beatings are also long traditions dating back before the US existed but most of us have come to realize that's no reason to keep them around either. (And gosh, all of them were--and still are--made possible or abetted by guns!)
No need to answer; I know you're not convinced, especially if you work for a gun company or the NRA. Please help the world; find a better job and do something about the anger--of which you're probably unconscious, I know. Still...
...
but I'm with you on the nukes and solar. Add wind and conservation and we're all set.
Excellent article. Mr, Koehler inquires "Why would they bring a lethal weapon to a public event"? Indeed. A very simple question that, to the gun fanatics, must always be centered upon their "freedoms". The First Amendment is not sacrosanct as it does not allow the word fire, as it is persuasively argued, to be uttered in a crowded theater. One would think that a reasonable presentation of that argument could be offered regarding the Second Amendment which would be that guns would not blatantly seen in a public event especially in an event where the president of the United States or any other public official would be attending.
This is not quantum physics but common sense. As Mr. Koehler implies, the obvious reason that these less than intelligent people are bringing LOADED weapons to these events is to intimidate the speakers and people who are attending these events because they do not agree with their point of view. It should be evident to any sane, logical person that these people are incapable of discussing why insurance companies should continue to make billions of dollars off the backs of the working class, the poor and the middle class of this country. They are allowing themselves to be manipulated by outlets like Fox "News" because they irrationally believe that the government is the cause of all evil in this country. They may wish to ask their relatives if they want to give up their Social Security checks or Medicare or stop receiving their mail at a federally run post office.
What is just as bad, as the writer laments, is the fact that these people are not being arrested for being a threat to the officials who are at these events. Since these gun toting individuals seem to thrive on their emotions because they believe that the government is out to get them, it should not be surprising if at least one of them starts venting his rage by unloading his macho weapon at the evil doers of the government. This is an accident waiting to happen, as the expression goes, and all because law enforcement officials are terrified of infringing upon Americans' insane love affair with their guns.
Perhaps the difference, then and now, is that Cheneybush and their minions had every reason in the world to be afraid, they being criminal usurpers. For criminal usurpers, any hint of opposition is unbearable.
It's a truism that if someone wants to kill the prez badly enough to sacrifice their own life to do it, the prez is dead. The corollary would be that nothing that anyone does is dangerous without their intention to be dangerous.
Which means that people get upset about all the wrong things. They get indignant about law-abiding people peacefully exercising their lawful rights, and they get indignant about thugs with badges abusing the innocent. What's the similarity? There is none! People should be glowing in the dark with anger when the innocent are abused by the powerful, and should be doing something about it. But no, their reaction is the same: empty indignation.
To some people, Obama is apparently more than mere flesh, and they think nobody should be allowed to do anything to upset the even tenor of his worshipers' lives. That's idolatry, folks, and it comes dangerously close to the kind of pre-scientific thinking that made people legally liable for what other people dreamed about them. When we say that people cannot behave in lawful ways because WE believe they might be having criminal ideas, we're not merely criminalising thought, we're punishing someone else for OUR thoughts. How much crazier and anti-rational could we be?
Statistically a person elected president of this country has a 1 in 10 chance of being shot by a gun while in office (four have died of their wounds, one recovered). No nation in history has attempted to remove as high a percentage of its leaders by killing them. And we are supposed to be a democracy??!!! Not one president has been run down by an automobile. It is time to do for the nation what Congress did following the gun assault on Congress more than 50 years ago and what most states have done since --outlaw the possession of a firearm in places where legislation takes place and in places where public (State and Federal) business takes place. A political event is the same as public business. Our elected, or those running for election, deserve at least that amount of security.
Now you second amendment nuts can scream all you want about liberals being afraid of guns. I am not afraid of guns, but only the nuts who think that a gun is an answer to any problem.
Well said.
Who would think a gun is the answer to problems, and why?
Not the rich. The rich hardly ever use violence themselves (they buy it from other people, often those with badges).
And not people in countries where the government is responsive to the popular will.
No, most people who seem to think guns are the answer do so because they're poor and ignored in keptocracies like the US where government is unresponsive except to the rich.
That's something we rarely think about: the rich don't have guns. They don't need them--they have options, they have power, they are listened to by government functionaries. They have privilege, and entitlement. Guns are the last recourse of the poor, because even the illusion of some power is better than the sick certainty that one has no power or choices at all.
So maybe the right idea isn't to get rid of the guns, but get rid of unresponsive government. As Michael Moore's Columbine film brought out, Canada has plenty guns too, just like the US. But Canadians feel more in charge, more possessed of options, less under siege, so the meaning of the gun is different there.
Just think if we didn't have a system in which people can lie like rugs to get our votes, secure in the knowledge that once they're in office they have *years* in which they can betray and plunder us because we have no legal way to get rid of them. I bet life would be quite different, then. What do you think?
Agreed. People should not bring guns to safe public gatherings, because idiots like the guy in the article who dropped his gun could hurt someone when there is no threat to him. But don't put so much faith in your leaders as to trust them with all the force. Plus, should there be anarchy, your neighbors could turn into starving savages that will do anything for food. I want to be able to protect myself and I dont want that taken away because of a couple right wing idiots proving how small their dicks are at a town hall meeting. The founders put that in the bill of rights for a reason.
Is it any wonder that under the Bush regime, free speech was being curbed or crushed at any of his appearances.
I have been a peace activist for over a year and a half.Better late than never, and I am still waiting for the Christians of this country to speak out against war, as Jesus would do if he were here walking amongst us.
We have a small group , 8 people, all of us over 50 years of age or older.
We gather every Sunday for exactly one hour with our signs asking to end the occupations , bring our troops home, don't bomb Iran, etc. Very mild protest statements.
Up and until the election of President Obama, the constant cursing and obscenity's thrown at us by people in passing cars was one in every 5.So on a busy day of over 2000 cars in one hour, we had over 400 hate comments thrown at us.
No doubt about it, militants who believe that George Bush kept us safe.
Safe from what??? He had been fully briefed of a potential attack on US soil by Bin Ladin using air planes the month before 9/11.This is indisputable fact. HE DID NOTHING.
Now , as we stand every Sunday, we have maybe 1 or 2 people yell at us from the road as they pass by, huge change in attitude.
The peace haters are still around, but they dont have much to say, because uncle George is not there to protect their hate speech.
America is waking up, and the vast majority of us, both right and left, have realized that the Bush Regime and his elite buddy's were hijacking our freedoms and our country.
There is still a lot of work left to clean out the Bushites from positions of unaccountable power, but it is going to happen, and like it or not, to return the country to the center and protect the constitution, we need left wing liberal Democrats in office for the next 30 years.
If you love America and its Constitution, repeal the Patriot Acts, end all wars, bring our troops home, pass a national health care option and lets improve our education programs to teach Americans the value of protected civilized free speech.
Form One patriotic American who wants to help his fellow Americans, I vow to protect the constitution from enemies Foreign and Domestic.
You are either with me or against me.
Its time to choose. Lets show up in huge numbers and let the elected officials and the huge corporations hear our voices.the guys with the guns will always be there, don't be afraid, our constitutions always them to be there, but our voices can always drown out silent guns.
NATIONAL HEALTH CARE NOW,,, Its a moral obligation we have for our people, and Jesus would be at town hall meetings supporting a national health care option, you know he would.
k
Your liberal democrats are not going to give your constitutional freedoms back. No one in power sacrafices power. They only ones who pledge to do that are the libertarians. But with the good you get the bad, which is basically mild anarchy. But no mainstream politician will sacrafice the kind of authoritative powers Bush (and now Obama) possess without a fight. Everyone's savoir for the last 2 years on this site, Barry Obama, ain't giving you your privacy back. It was obvious when he voted for every orwellian bill after making a big shpeel opposing it. He held onto his power to disregard habeus corpus and "render" people to other countries to be tortured.
You said you were new to the movement, well then I think I have to be the one to inform you that you have no hope in democrats. They are in the hands of the real owners of this country, just like the repubs. It's already a forgone conclusion that republicans are now just basically lunatics, but democrats don't care about you either. They just pretend like they do. They all work for the same elite that made sure none of us were born free, but born into debt.
They will use what the base believes is a noble cause and exploit it. After the new "environmental" bill passes, we will then learn it just sets up another fictional market for banksters to manipulate and profit of over. Side note, Al Gore recently started a company for trading carbon that Goldman Sachs has money in.
There are a few good ones out there on both sides out there, Dennis Kuchinich and Ron Paul (say what you want about his ideas, he ain't in anyone's pocket) come to mind. But there are not enough good ones. And thats because there are not enough good citizens. Americans are incredibly overworked or lazy to protest, they are held in debt slavery, and they are hypnotized by televisions to take action to change anything. Stop wasting your time, enjoy your life, and worry about preparing your family and yourself for the inevitable instability coming around the bend. No democrat is going to save you.
Typical anti-gun, politically correct stuff and nonsense.
Frankly, I'd say the Left didn't try anything like this in the Bush years because they've been brainwashed against firearms.
Remember Mao -- "All political power grows from the barrel of a gun."
Another proud, patriotic, American quoting a communist leader to back his insane position.
Well done.. Ugh...
Hey I actually agree that we should have access to legal fire arms. You liberals are idiots in that regard. People should have access to everything the govt in their country has in case they turn on the people. Don't kid yourself, any government can become opressive.
Most gun crimes are committed with illegal weapons.
However, while I do think we should have the right to firearms, any douchebag that takes them out in a crowded, non-threatening public area is a f'in idiot. This guy in the story who dropped his gun deserves to be pistol whipped.
But don't call people who defend the right to own guns insane. I think your insane for not knowing how to use one. I dont know about you, but I have a bad feeling about the next 3 to 5 years and I want to be prepared if shit hits the fan. That means having alot of food, medicine, a free electricity source (PV generator), and goddamn gun incase the government decides to contract blackwater to patrol my neighborhood because of protests and unrest. (Happened during Katrina)
So it is not insane to want access to firearms. It is insane to bring guns to townhall meetins.
His comment is insane. And you are a douche for jumping on me. Political power must flow from the barel of a gun? How narrow minded a comment. Nelson Mandela gunned his way out of prison and into power? M Ghandi mowed down his foes to achieve his pilotical following? Ridiculous. I never once said I am against guns or gun ownership. I am ex-Army and do know how to shoot, thank you. Only lasting peace can be achieved if peacful means are used to gain it. Violent solutions are temporary solutions
Apropos Gandhi (not Ghandi), it might help to read Alinsky on the subject. He quotes passages from Gandhiji's writings that made Alinsky believe that the only reason Gandhi used non-violence is that the British had disarmed India and passive non-violence was all he had to work with.
It's also worthwhile noting Orwell's analysis: that Gandhi's tactics would never have worked against any country but Britain, where the public had some freedom and an ingrained respect for fair play. Had the occupiers been Nazi Germany, or Russia...or the USA...it's quite possible that Gandhi would have been Nacht-und-Nebel'd or would have "committed suicide" before he got anywhere.
That's an excellent point Mairead.
Don't go name calling like a child. I did not insult you by disagreeing with you and I'm confident that everyone else on the board will agree with me when I say insults and personal attacks have no place here. The community here prides itself on civil discourse.
I do agree with you with regards to having a significant degree of respect for non-violent passive resistance. However there might be a good chance that many of the founders would have agreed with Mao. Hunger strikes didn't really win our freedom from the imperialist British.
And for such a peace advocate you seem to get iritated quite easily... like most douchebags I know.
Cpotts18
"You liberals are idiots in that regard"
Sure sounded like an attack to me. You can't have it both ways, if you can lump me into the idiots, I can lump you in with the douches. Fair enough?
Also, Mairead. Thanks for the further information on Gandhi.... It was probably not the best example I could have used.
"..I'm confident that everyone else on the board will agree with me when I say insults and personal attacks have no place here...like most douchebags I know."
Goodness we did not even need a Hunger strike to gain independence from the british.
What we did in Canada was ask for our independence.
Quite the concept is it not?
In a shootout with Blackwater you would DIE. Get it?
Your probably right, but at least I wont make it easy for them. Why even bother some might ask? Cause f#ck them, thats why. As a moderate pacifist I will not attack, but I will defend.
no comment.
Right on. Never trust your government. Speak softly and carry a weapon. Or be one. But never carry a weapon to a political event. Carrying a weapon to such an event is a clear threat and must be seen as such. Giving these guys the benefit of the doubt is like feeding a hyena. You are going to be bitten.
MichaelC
Rednecks like you are the reason this country is in sharp decline. Talking smack about the Left, then quoting one of the most revered Communist leaders of all time to defend your "position", which boils down to calling people who don't agree with you "brainwashed" and "politically correct".
Personally I am purchasing at least one firearm this year, because so many idiots like you are running amock in this great land of ours.
Sir, when democracy finally disappears completely from the United States, it will be the far right that destroys it. THEY WILL COME FOR YOUR GUNS, no matter your political persuasion. You can be one of them, makes no difference. If you resist, you will be killed and your body thrown unceremoniously into a shallow grave. No dictatorship will allow an armed populace to potentially challenge them.
"Sir, when democracy finally disappears completely from the United States..."
That occurred on December 12, 2000 when the Supreme Court decided Bush v Gore.
Ah Mord,
"We can't win". This was exactly the attitude of the "Loyalists" during the 1760's and 1770's. But sharper minds like Washington realized, that you didn't have to win a fire-fight to survive. The colonist spent most of the first years of the Revolutionary war retreating. They were out-gunned, out financed, out-classed, out-maneuvered, still they survived long enough for the beast to get tired of all the ants biting him and he finally just left.
For testicle fortitude to emerge in patriotic leaders in government requires a base to back them up. Obama originally said we would have to force the government to keep it's promises. And then every Obama supporter went right back to his ipod and TV and decided that old Barry could do it all by himself.
Trying to disarm 100 million people in their houses, is going to be iffy. Maybe impossible if we all form legal Militias. But just like settlements out of court, things rarely lead to your scenario of cop vs homeowner. Cooler heads can prevail and set up a redress for grievance in accordance with the highest law in the land.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
I happen to be an eclectic libertarian -- not a "redneck" or an NRA member or even a Repub. I quit the Repubs more than a decade ago because they're all talk and no do, and I quit the NRA long before that because all they exist for is to fill Repub coffers with money.
The only Repub I've voted for since 1996 is Ron Paul -- aside from him, it's been LP all the way. I know better than to trust in the War Party now (which is what the Repubs and Demos are, really -- one party with two wings, the better to hoodwink the American sheeple).
And if you'd like an American quotation and not one from a communist, how about this?: “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
Dear PaulfromGA,
Remember Gandhi--"No it doesn't, barrelhead."
Alternatively, we might quote Isaac Asimov -
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Lacewing
Excellent quotation.
Ultimately, this gun stuff just refllects the fundamental uncivility and anti-compassion that permeates US culture. This came out today in the starkly different reactions between the US and the UK toward Scotland's planned release of the dying Lockerbie bomber so he can return to Libia and his family to die.
link below (remove quotes)
"http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_LOCKERBIE?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=NATIONAL&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT"
I don't have any guns and if it were up to me, the civilian line in the US would be drawn at the compound bow (I'd even restrict crossbows). That said, I'm not sure this topic is being rationally discussed in the media. It seems reasonable that the man in NH with the sign about watering the tree should be detained for questioning at the very least as this can be viewed as a veiled threat on the president's life. But unless a state passes a law about too many people with guns gathering together in a public place, there is really nothing to get excited about on most of these other cases. As has been explained occasionally in the media, when the president speaks in an area, there is a well defined boundary called the "venue", and inside the venue, federal laws supersede the state's and no one is trying to bring guns inside that boundary that I know of. Perhaps these few gun toting protesters will encourage others to attempt something that is illegal, that's very hard to say though. And the amount of press given to this issue is just making that likelihood worse. I vote for ignoring them mostly.
To ppeters: I agree that there have been a lot of assassinations in the US (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_politicians), but do you have a reference for your statement "No nation in history has attempted to remove as high a percentage of its leaders by killing them." ? This is a rather definitive assertion of fact and I haven't been able to find confirmation yet. I suppose it also needs to be better defined - how does one compare two countries that were formed on different dates?, are only the top leaders like president or prime minister considered? India has had a fair amount of assassinations as have many other countries. You may still be right, but I need more to be convinced.
Dara Parsavand
why just civilians limited to a bow? shouldn't military and police force be limited to a bow and arrow too?
I guess I would have qualify my statement. There are a few African countries that have many more political assassinations than the US. India has had only three prime ministers who met that fate and they were all in the same family. For a list of those killed and in what area of the world go to: http://www.search.com/reference/List_of_assassinated_people
The point is that we are the oldest democracy and try to hold ourselves up as the model for the rest of the world. I note that the first assassination in this country took place when the rest of the world was just catching on to the notion of democracy (1864). Nice example we set.