Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Guns are brought to Obama protest

August 18, 2009

Advertisement

— About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday — the latest incident in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Gun-rights advocates say they’re exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday’s event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn’t need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. “In Arizona, I still have some freedoms,” he said.

Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who monitored the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.

“Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions,” Oliver said. “We were keeping peace on both ends.”

Last week, during Obama’s health care town hall in Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a sign reading “It is time to water the tree of liberty” stood outside with a pistol strapped to his leg.

“It’s a political statement,” he told The Boston Globe. “If you don’t use your rights, then you lose your rights.”

Police asked the man to move away from school property, but he was not arrested.

Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend.

“When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance,” Solop said. “It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication.”

He said he’s never heard of someone bringing an assault weapon near a presidential event. “The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation,” he said.

Phoenix was Obama’s last stop on a four-day tour of western states, including Montana and Colorado.

Comments

grammaddy 5 years, 4 months ago

Who are the idiots that allow this.? No one should be allowed to bring a gun anywhere near the POTUS!!! I don't give a damn about owner's rights, there need to be some boundaries here!! In my lifetime, there have been too many attempts to assassinate the President. Only one was successful but that's one too many. This is just stupid.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 4 months ago

what's to be scared of? just don't piss off the guy that controls the trigger.
This story is word for word the one I read on Yahoo last night. minus the important part at the end where the secret service said that it wasn't a problem. didn't cause them much more work at all, and that it's important to note that nobody with a gun would get near the president. congrats LJworld on keeping this a liberal anti-gun rag. How many other amendment rights are you guys scared to let happen around the president? freedom of speech is pretty scary stuff too.

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

"How many other amendment rights are you guys scared to let happen around the president?"

Try getting in to speak with your pro-gun rights congressman without having to first pass through a metal detector to scan you for weapons. It ain't gonna happen.

People bringing guns to rallies are just jerks trying to intimidate others -- is anyone convinced that they are, at that moment, just trying to protect themselves against potential attack? It gives all gun owners a bad name.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 4 months ago

let them be the full idiots they are? you don't know these men. you're making assumptions based on this one very powerful statement. do you think everyone that owns a gun is an idiot, or just those that choose to exercise their rights fully?

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

On the one hand, it's good that people are able to exercise their rights. On the other, something like this is disconcerting to read about, and I'm sure it would be frightening to witness in person for some. But the Secret Service is the best security force in the world, and it's not the ones that display their arms at such gatherings anyone needs to worry about.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 4 months ago

i think it's important to let the government know that we are still armed and that they should continue to respect the citizens by not stomping all over our rights. the reason the 2nd amendment is in the constitution is to protect Americans from our government.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 4 months ago

well that would be a start wouldn't it...

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 4 months ago

"I don't give a damn about owner's rights, there need to be some boundaries here!!" said the Bill of Rights hater.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 4 months ago

Boy, their penises must be REALLY small!

He who lives by the gun shall die by the gun.

UnsavoryCharacter 5 years, 4 months ago

The only difference between a responsible gun owner and a criminal is motivation.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 4 months ago

BuenaVista (Anonymous) says… I guess Obama needs an elite team to disarm these Americans.

Cappy says: No, these guys just need some education and better social skills.

MeAndFannieLou 5 years, 4 months ago

Once again the people who have no sense of how far is too far will ruin a good thing (the 2nd Ammenment) for the rest of us.

It's always the same people who just push and push and push, and then when the rest of us push back, as we ultimately have to, they cry about their rights and freedoms being lost.

It's too much to ask some people to balance their rights and freedoms with a little responsibility and consideration for others.

kathyw105 5 years, 4 months ago

While I completely support our right to bear arms, all of these people at the rallies are just a bunch of sheep. Nothing more.

jimmyjms 5 years, 4 months ago

To the absolute idiots like areunormal and barrypenders:

Would you have supported left-leaning protesters bringing guns to a dubya rally?

That's a hypothetical, because W didn't let unarmed protesters within a mile of his events.

This is stupidity on a serious level.

For those on here squawking on here about "rights", please enumerate for us the litany of rights that you've lost, or that are threatened, under this admin.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 4 months ago

What are they trying to prove? They want to intimidate people. Brandishing a weapon is a threat intended to shut people up who don't agree with them.

gogoplata 5 years, 4 months ago

Nothing wrong with bringing a gun. I trust private legally armed citizens more than I trust the police or any other armed government agents. The only idiots are the ones who actually trust the government not to trample thier rights.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 4 months ago

I'm sure that the Secret Service wasn't worried about this guy-- they likely had snipers trained on him the whole time.

gphawk89 5 years, 4 months ago

"I'm sure it would be frightening to witness in person for some"

If someone is frightened by just seeing a gun... well... that's their problem, I guess. I can think of a lot more frightening things than seeing someone walking around with a pistol in a holster.

UnsavoryCharacter 5 years, 4 months ago

Nancy Boy, I'd say your anger is a little misplaced. Please direct your ire at the corporate interests that have bought and paid for our elected representatives.

jafs 5 years, 4 months ago

Why did the Arizona law enforcement officer say they didn't need a permit?

Is it legal to own/carry a gun in Arizona without any sort of permit?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 4 months ago

I expressed no "feeling" one way or the other, BuenaVista. I merely noted what was likely the case.

kmat 5 years, 4 months ago

Think about this. The A-hole in NH that came to the Obama town hall with a pistol strapped to his leg also had a sign that said "It is time to water the tree of liberty". Do any of you know the significance of this?

Remember McVeigh, that wonderful home grown terrorist? What shirt was he wearing when he blew up the federal building in OKC? Why, it had Lincoln on the front and the back said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

To sum up McViegh: "There was an excerpt found in McVeigh's car from "The Turner Diaries," the far-right novel that advocates a violent uprising against a seemingly oppressive government. "The real value of our attack lies in the psychological impact, not in the immediate casualties".

These A-holes bringing guns to events the President is holding are the same as McVeigh. When will they snap and decide to take out their fellow citizens? They are acting as terrorists, not executing their constitutional right to bear arms. They're trying to scare and intimidate (psychological impact!!!).

They don't represent what this country is about. They are terrorists.

Intelligent people can speak to resolve issues. Idiots will brandish a gun first.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nndb.com/people/936/000031843/timothy-mcveigh-1-sized.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nndb.com/people/936/000031843/&usg=__HX2iPXIt3KsUFBSTfaQqBcn4vQw=&h=293&w=244&sz=38&hl=en&start=8&um=1&tbnid=dBkUiAsRbRwHnM:&tbnh=115&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmcveigh%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us%26sa%3DX%26um%3D1

http://tech.mit.edu/V117/N21/mcveigh.21w.html

1029 5 years, 4 months ago

Republican anger is going to reach a boiling point. Each day that goes by without the country completely falling to ruin angers the Republican more and more. They need for the state of American society to get continuously worse if they are to have any hope of every being a relevant political party again. They badly need for more people to lose their jobs, subsequently see their quality life decline, and then hopefully be angry enough to join them in fighting "big bad government". The premature, whiny accusations of sinking poll numbers and "Obama's failed administration" is getting ridiculous. It's sad how these people have no concept of time or how the federal government works.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of these undereducated gun-toting "patriots" decides to take a few shots someday. They have no idea what's going on in the world around them, and it's making them increasingly frustrated and angry. It gets especially dangerous when Republican leadership attempts to capitalize on the ignorance and generally low intelligence of their constituency and fuels the fire by scaring these simpletons with words like "socialism" or telling people that big bad government is going to take away their guns.

Practicality 5 years, 4 months ago

Although I also believe that the Secret Service can handle any situation that develops, I do think this has the potential for some people to get hurt. It only takes one idiot to create an incident, even if it is just throw a firecracker around this area.

I support the 2nd amendment, and recognize the right to openly carry firearms, but I just do not want to see anyone get hurt over what I believe is a lack of judgement of when to excersise this right. I do think this is a bit amusing at the moment though, for it appears that these right wing supporters have borrowed a page from the left wing Black Panthers playbook, and now the left is denouncing this tactic. Humorous indeed, unless someone gets hurt of course.

Also wondering, could someone take a picnic at a place like South Park with a .50 caliber Sniper Rifle laying next to them? Just curious as to what our local law enforcement would do in such a case.

puddleglum 5 years, 4 months ago

these idiots are just helping anti-gun activists. I own guns and all that, but all they are trying to do is intimidate people, and it makes them look so foolish. It is isolating the gun nuts from the rest of the population, and it could cost us other gun enthusiasts.

Joe Hyde 5 years, 4 months ago

What blue73harley, bozo on the bus, and puddleglum said.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"If someone is frightened by just seeing a gun… well… that's their problem, I guess. I can think of a lot more frightening things than seeing someone walking around with a pistol in a holster."

That's you, gphawk, and that's why I said "for some". I'm sure there are an awful lot of gun owners who would feel more than a little uneasy seeing Joe Shmoe strolling down Main Street with a rifle over his shoulder, particularly when they know the President is across the street. That shouldn't be that difficult a concept to wrap your mind around.

jonas_opines 5 years, 4 months ago

This is a case where some over-zeaolous citizens have confused "I can" with "I should." Constitutional Amendment or not, laws or not, this is just asking for something bad to happen to whoever is flaunting their armaments.

jimmyjms 5 years, 4 months ago

Still waiting for verification that it would be acceptable for the left to come to W's appearances strapped, or that it will be when we have a Republican president.

Similarly, still waiting to see a list of "freedoms" that Obama has stripped from the Constitution.

It's curious, none of you were too up in arms about warrantless wiretaps, which would seem to me a direct violation of the Constitution that you pretend to love so dearly.

Mary Darst 5 years, 4 months ago

Seriously, are soooo many people that crazy.. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THESE PEOPLE THINK.

sfjayhawk 5 years, 4 months ago

These gun toting mega dorks were not attending the protest. They were actually attending the Tiny Peckers Support Group meeting that was held around the corner. Just a coincidence really.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"Still waiting for verification that it would be acceptable for the left to come to W's appearances strapped, or that it will be when we have a Republican president"

Who knows? Don't see why not if it's legal in that state or town, though I tend to side with jonas' take on judgement.

Apparently it was "o.k." to make a movie about the assassination of President Bush and write several books about it, though. Gee, I wonder how shrill the shrieking and loud the calls of 'racism' would be if that were to occur today? Actually, no, I don't. It'd be deafening.

ferrislives 5 years, 4 months ago

I believe in everyone's right to own a gun, as long as they're not insane, but I have a theory: These groups are brandishing their weapons in hopes that it will cause left-leaning and some centrist Americans to fight for more gun control that everyone knows won't pass. But the effect will be to draw a bunch more right-wing voters to the next election, which would bring them back to power. I think it's all intentional. But that's just a theory.

Practicality 5 years, 4 months ago

jaywalker (Anonymous) says…

"Apparently it was “o.k.” to make a movie about the assassination of President Bush and write several books about it, though. Gee, I wonder how shrill the shrieking and loud the calls of 'racism' would be if that were to occur today? Actually, no, I don't. It'd be deafening."

Excellent point jaywalker!

Roadkill_Rob 5 years, 4 months ago

"The reason the 2nd amendment is in the constitution is to protect Americans from our government."

Okay, I've heard this comment many times before and I need someone to elaborate. I understand that this is a solid argument back when the 2nd amendment was written b/c, back then, we didn't really have a military and citizen militias could actually protect themselves from the government.

But these days, how is an assault rifle really going to protect you from today's government-run military?

I believe that guns can be and should be used for regulated hunting and to protect yourself from burglars, rapists, etc... But how you think you can protect yourself from today's US military with a few guns is baffling to me.

I think this theory would make more sense if we privatized the military, but for some reason, it's okay to have a government-run military to right-wingers.

Does anyone else see the irony and hypocricy? If not, I'm open ears.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

Whether or not one supports "gun rights", I think all rational people can agree that these folks bringing guns to "protests" outside of presidential venues are seriously irresponsible.

While these folks might very well believe in their hearts that they are simply demonstrating "gun rights", many others see this as a threatening action meant to stifle real debate and argument. Guns are meant to intimidate.

The fact that these folks do not realize this makes them irresponsible gun owners.

I credit the president for not making a big deal about this and keeping it in perspective, something that was lost after 9/11. You can bet the Secret Service and likely the FBI are very interested, though.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

99.9% of the US government is identical in policy and personnel to one year ago, and yet now we are hearing from all of those who call for the violent overthrow of the US government.

What gives?

What have Obama or the dems in congress accomplished that merit talk of overthrowing the US government violently?

Help me understand.

jimmyjms 5 years, 4 months ago

"Apparently it was “o.k.” to make a movie about the assassination of President Bush and write several books about it, though."

This is so intellectually lazy as to be incredible.

You're equating making a movie and writing a book to bringing loaded guns to a presidential event? And with the context that the president you're defending did not allow protest of any kind?

Beyond stupid.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

What would "gun rights" supports say if these folks fired their weapons at these "protests"?

Would that be simply a responsible demonstration of "gun rights"?

Where do you all draw the line for irresponsible behavior? Shooting at effigies? Shooting people who disagree with you? Shooting at politicians?

Where do you draw the line for responsible gun ownership?

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

What would “gun rights” supports say if these folks fired their weapons at these “protests”?

Would that be simply a responsible demonstration of “gun rights”?

Where do you all draw the line for irresponsible behavior? Shooting at effigies? Shooting people who disagree with you? Shooting at politicians?

Where do you draw the line for responsible gun ownership?

kmat 5 years, 4 months ago

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…

Since there has been conspiracy theories up the wazoo from the left the past several years, here's one for ya':

How do you know Obama and his handlers didn't decide to stage this using secret service plants? His trustworthiness and fraudulence is becoming questioned more every day. No surprises here.


How many tin foil hats do you own?

gogoplata 5 years, 4 months ago

Intelligent people can speak to resolve issues. Idiots will brandish a gun first.

Government is Force. Represenatives from our Government are the ones brandishing weapons first.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"This is so intellectually lazy as to be incredible.

You're equating making a movie and writing a book to bringing loaded guns to a presidential event? And with the context that the president you're defending did not allow protest of any kind?

Beyond stupid"

Intellectually lazy? First of all, I answered your incredibly simplistic question. Secondly, while I believe I've been clear on what I think of this particular type of demonstration, the people that did this broke NO laws whatsoever and made no threats toward the President, not to mention the fact that you have no idea if the guns were loaded. Perhaps they were, but you throw that in with no verification whatsoever and merely for the sake of hyperbole.
Thirdly, if you can't see the disntinction between someone carrying a weapon in public in "peaceful protest" (Robert Gibbs, White House Press Sec.) versus those that would write about and/or make a film about killing a sitting President, that's your intellectual shortfall, not mine. The latter is far more inflammatory and egregious, at least in my opinion. Lastly, your statement "the president you're defending did not allow protest of any kind" doesn't have a single factual word in it. I did not defend anyone, brain trust, nor is it true that President Bush refused to "allow protest of any kind". Are you actually writing this stuff or did you give your kid brother the keyboard for a sec?

Beyond stupid? Yes. Yes you are.

Practicality 5 years, 4 months ago

logrithmic (Anonymous) says…

"This argues for background screening and, IMHO, psychological testing for those who buy guns."

AND

"As a gun owner myself"

You better hope that the first statement you made doesn't come to pass, other wise the second statement you made would not be true any longer!

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

Obama and the Secret Service are wise in not making a big deal of this publically.

As far as we know, the NRA could be hoping that one of these nuts gets arrested so that they can have a big distraction and whip up the gun nuts.

An Obama reaction at this time, one that whips up the gun nuts, might be more dangerous in the long run. An angry gun nut tends to shoot his gun.

gogoplata 5 years, 4 months ago

I love how people who love liberty and the constitution are "gut nuts"

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"Therefore, my theory remains intact."

Not here, not now, not once, not ever.

gogo,

Personally, I like a flat tummy. :)

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

Amendment 28: Be it so resolved that the government shall in no way infringe, interfere with, or suppress the decisions of citizens about the size of their waistlines; nor shall they promote any particular waist size.

sinverguenza 5 years, 4 months ago

BuenaVista (Anonymous) says…

That SPLC article is laughable propaganda.


Well now that you've said that, I'm convinced you're right! Care to share with the rest of us what you found so laughable, or did you even bother to read it?

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

gogo, do you like Amendment 16? It is as much a part of the Constitution as is the 2nd.

sinverguenza 5 years, 4 months ago

sfjayhawk (Anonymous) says…

These gun toting mega dorks were not attending the protest. They were actually attending the Tiny Peckers Support Group meeting that was held around the corner. Just a coincidence really.


FTW.

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

jay, good point about the film of the murder of Bush. That was repugnant then, and it would still be repugnant if it were updated or remade today. I was personally disappointed that there weren't more people speaking out over that piece of trash. It is about respecting the office, even if you dislike the person in the office at any given time.

Nice to see so many of the rational gun owners on here recognizing that these armed folks at the rallies acted foolishly. (I would have written "stupidly," but then I'd have to have everybody over for a beer and I'm not sure I can afford that right now.)

gl0ck0wn3r 5 years, 4 months ago

"Cappy (Anonymous) says… Brandishing a weapon is a threat intended to shut people up who don't agree with them."

Define brandishing. Carrying a weapon is not brandishing.

"yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says… What would “gun rights” supports say if these folks fired their weapons at these “protests”?"

Is this a real question or are you simply clueless? I'm guessing the latter. Just in case it is the former, firing weapons unsafely at a protest would clearly be irresponsible behavior.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 4 months ago

this is what the LJ world left out of the AP story.

Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open-carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president.

"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."

sinverguenza 5 years, 4 months ago

First of all, SPLC aren't journalists. Secondly, I must have missed the part where all Caucasians who oppose large government were labeled "white supremacists" - oh, I see, it's because you just made that generalization up to cover for your laziness.

Lastly, it's clear you either didn't read, or didn't understand, what the report is saying. So be it. There's a tree of knowledge out there, but by all means, stand out in the stupid hot sun instead and get burned by your own ignorance.

Stuart Evans 5 years, 4 months ago

roadkill_bob: "But these days, how is an assault rifle really going to protect you from today's government-run military? "


ask the Taliban, they seem to be holding up pretty well against our government run military.

why do you think that government is any less likely today to come in and squash us than it was 200 years ago? do you really think the gov has our best interests at heart? we are merely slaves to these people of immense world power. just because things seem all free and happy now, doesn't mean it can't/won't change on a dime.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

glockowner said: "...firing weapons unsafely at a protest would clearly be irresponsible behavior."

You qualify this with "unsafely". Would there be a safe way to fire a gun at a "protest"? Let me know.

gl0ck0wn3r 5 years, 4 months ago

"yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…You qualify this with “unsafely”. Would there be a safe way to fire a gun at a “protest”? Let me know."

Sure, if someone "organized" a protest at a facility at which one could fire "weapons" safely, it would "not" be unsafe to "fire" weapons. Example: a "firing" range.

Happy?

Ralph Reed 5 years, 4 months ago

This boils down to common sense or rather a sore lack thereof.

Sure, Arizona is an open-carry state and some guy was shown walking around carrying an assault-style rifle over his shoulder and a holstered pistol on his left hip. He proved a point, that he could carry a weapon and be in compliance with the laws. People do strange things when they lack sufficient self image.

I say that he had a terrible lack of common sense, having bought into the politics of fear and hatred; just like a lot of people in Kansas have bought into the politics of fear and hatred. The flames of which are regularly fanned with relish and maniacal abandon by our local and regional Rush/O'Reilly/Coulter/Beck/Palin melange(s) -there are more than one.

Once again, the Reps and Conservatives have shown themselves to be part of the problem and not willing to work towards a solution. Well done guys, you make me glad I'm a Liberal (anybody to the left of our local Rush/O'Reilly/Coulter/Beck/Palin melange) and a Democrat.

Kirk Larson 5 years, 4 months ago

barrypenders (Anonymous) says… Progressive nature complains about firearms going off because an inoccent may become hurt. Likewise, progressive nature complains about STD's but they don't deride hodgepodge of promiscuity.

Cappy says: I don't know where you get your nonsense, but I support comprehensive sex education which means teach about safe sex. It's you conservatives who teach abstinence only knowing full well it will lead to more STD's and teen pregnancy. Get real.

jimmyjms 5 years, 4 months ago

Ah, the jaywalker. From petty to wrong to indignant in 10 seconds. Where to start...

"not to mention the fact that you have no idea if the guns were loaded. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#32378192

He states quite clearly that his weapon was loaded.

"First of all, I answered your incredibly simplistic question."

No, you didn't. I asked whether you wingnuts would really be on here defending a left-leaning protester coming to a Bush event (Jeb?) armed. So far, all you've said was that as long as the law allows it. But we both know that if the political parties were reversed, so would your position.

"Thirdly, if you can't see the disntinction between someone carrying a weapon in public in “peaceful protest” (Robert Gibbs, White House Press Sec.) versus those that would write about and/or make a film about killing a sitting President, that's your intellectual shortfall, not mine."

That's just stupid. Adding a gun, carried lawfully or not, to a tense and heated protest at which the leader of the free world (dem or repub) is speaking is, somehow in your mind, more egregious than a fictional account of some action? What??

You're attempting to equate the First and Second Amendments in a ludicrous context, and it's just dumb.

"Lastly, your statement “the president you're defending did not allow protest of any kind” doesn't have a single factual word in it. I did not defend anyone, brain trust, nor is it true that President Bush refused to “allow protest of any kind”."

I may have misspoken about whether or not you're a Bush supporter, but clearly you're either ignorant or obtuse:

From the American Conservative:

"When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event"

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/

Ring a bell?

I said your position was stupid, which I stand behind. You come off as an uninformed, sad little guy.

jimmyjms 5 years, 4 months ago

"more egregious than a fictional account of some action? What??"

Should read "less" egregious, obviously. All apologies.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

glockowner's response: "Sure, if someone “organized” a protest at a facility at which one could fire “weapons” safely, it would “not” be unsafe to “fire” weapons. Example: a “firing” range. Happy?"

Ecstatic! But still confused. So, unless a protest is organized at a firing range, it is never safe to fire a gun at a protest? Is this what you are saying?

If so, why on earth would a safe, responsible gun owner bring his weapon to any protest? If there is no chance of ever firing it, why bring it? Why load it with bullets? I am assuming of course that Obama was not holding his press conference at a firing range, although I could be wrong.

Please let me know your answers to these questions.

tomatogrower 5 years, 4 months ago

So Obama is against guns? Why did he sign a bill, approved by Democrats that allows guns in national parks. You conservatives just can't stand it when the reality that your radio and TV pundits create for you ends up not being reality. It just messes with your head doesn't it?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090816/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_national_parks

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

I didn't answer your question? Huh...

Question: “Still waiting for verification that it would be acceptable for the left to come to W's appearances strapped"

Answer: "Don't see why not if it's legal in that state or town, though I tend to side with jonas' take on judgement."

"So far, all you've said was that as long as the law allows it. But we both know that if the political parties were reversed, so would your position."

What are ya, two? Sorry, jimmy, you must be confusing the way you comport yourself with me. I like to filter all party politics through myself and advocate from both sides. You on the other hand.... And you can stick your 'wingnut' where the sun don't shine, cupcake. That's another two year old tack, start throwin' labels because someone doesn't strictly back your views. Pathetic.

"Adding a gun, carried lawfully or not, to a tense and heated protest at which the leader of the free world (dem or repub) is speaking is, somehow in your mind, more egregious than a fictional account of some action? What??"

There ya go makin' crappola up again in a weak attempt to prop up an even weaker argument. All accounts I've read said it was a peaceful meeting and a peaceful protest, nothing "tense and heated" about it. And I've already said I wasn't a fan of that display.
And my opinion was that making a movie about the assasination of a sitting President is more egregious than what these men did, not the other way around. Or does that word confuse you? Trying to water it all down with "fictional account of some action" is transparent and feeble. It wasn't "some action", it was an account of the murder of our President. What'd be worse in your mind: a few liberals openly carrying weapons in a peaceful protest or some conservative going Hollywood with the assasination of Obama? For me, it's still the latter.

"I may have misspoken about whether or not you're a Bush supporter, but clearly you're either ignorant or obtuse:

From the American Conservative: yadda yadda yadda"

This will officially conclude any further argument with you on this subject, as the above proves I'd be better off brushing my dog than wasting time with you, to wit:
Your absurd statement: "the president you're defending did not allow protest of any kind?"

your own citation: "local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined"

Oh my goodness!? Bush didn't "allow protest of ANY kind?" But...but..."free speech zones?" "Protest zones??" Why, that just can't be 'cuz jimmyjms said no protests were allowed, not of any kind. None.
Ever.
Anywhere.
Nada.
Zilch.
Bupkiss.

Ignorant and obtuse, huh? Those your middle names?

Eileen Jones 5 years, 4 months ago

These are lynch mobs, pure and simple.

Someone will have to do before the Secret Service acts.

Bush had people thrown out of his scripted, pre-screened town hall meetings because they had cars in the parking lot with the wrong bumper stickers.

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

I can just hear the Secret Service warning about people armed at a Bush speech -- "Keep an eye on that guy in the blue coat. He is wearing shoes."

grammaddy 5 years, 4 months ago

I'm not a "Bill of Rights hater". I'm a gun violence hater. When the Constitution was written there weren't nearly as many people in this country. There weren't police forces, county sheriffs,etc. Now there are too many nuts who own guns. Keep them away from my President, thank you.

llama726 5 years, 4 months ago

"Apparently it was “o.k.” to make a movie about the assassination of President Bush and write several books about it, though. Gee, I wonder how shrill the shrieking and loud the calls of 'racism' would be if that were to occur today? Actually, no, I don't. It'd be deafening."

Apparently a book is more lethal than an assault rifle, jaywalker? It's a bit different to create a book or a movie than it is to stand at an event housed by your PRESIDENT with an ASSAULT RIFLE

verity 5 years, 4 months ago

What grammaddy said.

Do you really think that you can defend yourself against the U.S. Army? And they are not going to come over to your side.

Charles L Bloss Jr 5 years, 4 months ago

I wish I had a .50 caliber sniper rifle. Thank you, Lynn

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

Yes Lynn, please tell us exactly why you wish you had a sniper rifle and how you would use it.

Mixolydian 5 years, 4 months ago

I agree. No private weapons within any range of the president.

Thanks to the Secret Service, I'm sure the president was safe from these folks though. I think there's a Youtube clip of this out there somewhere:

Dude: Nice assault rifle you got there. Gun toter: Thanks Dude: Are you Hindu? Gun toter: No, why? Dude: You got a red dot on your forehead.

gl0ck0wn3r 5 years, 4 months ago

"yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…If so, why on earth would a safe, responsible gun owner bring his weapon to any protest? If there is no chance of ever firing it, why bring it? Why load it with bullets? I am assuming of course that Obama was not holding his press conference at a firing range, although I could be wrong."

I take a gun to plenty of places at which I have no intention of firing it. For example, I went to a coffee shop, a grocery store and a restaurant today with a gun and didn't fire it. I had no intention of firing it.

Would you argue that bringing a condom somewhere automatically assumes one will be having sex? Or perhaps wearing a seatbelt assumes one intends to crash?

gl0ck0wn3r 5 years, 4 months ago

"grammaddy (Anonymous) says…I'm not a “Bill of Rights hater”. I'm a gun violence hater. When the Constitution was written there weren't nearly as many people in this country. There weren't police forces, county sheriffs,etc. Now there are too many nuts who own guns."

The same can also be said about the 1A. People did not have televisions, phones, computers or the internet when the Constitution was written. Clearly, using your logic, we should rethink the 1A in light of all this new fangled technology? No doubt the founders had no intention to allow just anyone the so-called right to open a website and post political writings. Right?

Boston_Corbett 5 years, 4 months ago

This stunt sounds like the kind of thing Marion would do and defend.

Mixolydian 5 years, 4 months ago

gl0ck0wn3r (Anonymous) says…

Would you argue that bringing a condom somewhere automatically assumes one will be having sex? Or perhaps wearing a seatbelt assumes one intends to crash?

  1. Hopes to.
  2. Hopes not to.

Yes to both.

puddleglum 5 years, 4 months ago

"ask the Taliban, they seem to be holding up pretty well against our government run military."

well, for one, they don't use junky M-16 with little-man 556 bullet (weak) they use superior socialist-built AK-47 weapon of doom and for crying out loud can we just admit that the reds made a better gun than we did? C'mon, nothing-and I mean NOTHING beats an MG-34, but the nazis made it, doesn't make it bad, in fact, it is the best machine gun of all time, unless you prefer the MG-42 upgrade. Nazi=national socialist workers' party.....aka socialists...maybe you right wingers should take note that the socialists continue to make the best guns..therefore, you will be happy once Obama redesigns the military. just a thought. sarah palin. moose. marion. guns. go buy one.

Satirical 5 years, 4 months ago

Haven't read any of the comments, but here is my take on the issue.

I am a strong advocate for gun rights, and these guys apparently have the right to carry weapons at these locations; but I think it is unwise to do so.

It gives the appearance of mob rule, rather than democratic rule; and could be viewed as threatening, which as the article points out, could have a chilling effect on free speech. In other contexts or venues, carrying a weapon might be fine, but I personally think it is inappropriate near the POTUS, even if it is outside a town hall meeting.

soldier1 5 years, 4 months ago

This was on CNN as well. And what this article fails to mention is that the protesters were no where near the POTUS. That's liberal media for you. Dance, puppets, dance.

soldier1 5 years, 4 months ago

Correct:

That is biased media for you, which LJW certainly is. And it's funny how people yell at each other on these forums until they're blue in the face, even about topics which they know little about, like it is going to change something. It's like people love conflict. I started reading news from this website because I wanted to know what was going on in my home town, but come to find out it is the same ol' stuff: biasness and bigotry. And no matter how offensive some people may get on these forums, nothing is done about it. I do not believe in this, therefore I will not support it by clicking on this website.

So, with that being said, I would like to bid farewell to you all. It was entertaining, and at times enlightening to see how crazy and hypocritical people actually are. The last message I would like to leave all of you warriors of 'truth' is "Don't sweat the small stuff, especially things in this insignificant forum, because things will work out for the better." Goodbye, and God bless.

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

This wasn't a spontaneous act of rebellion or display of defiance, but a planned and staged publicity stunt by people who feel that taxation is illegal.

"The protester carrying an AR-15 rifle outside President Barack Obama's speech in Phoenix on Monday staged the "publicity stunt" with the help of two local Libertarian groups that have worked with the man on Ron Paul's presidential campaign."

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/08/19/20090819riflestunt0819.html

Gun owners, don't be surprised if there is a backlash. Anyone remember when heavily armed Black Panthers marched to the California legislature in protest against a proposed ban against concealed weapons? There were soon several laws placed on the books restricting gun ownership in California, making it one of the states with the strictest laws.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

That's a damn good point, bea. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if some new law or restrictions were put in place due to this display.
Doesn't surprise me either that it could be an anti-tax organization behind the stunt.

jimmyjms 5 years, 4 months ago

"And you can stick your 'wingnut' where the sun don't shine, cupcake."

Let's meet up and discuss it, sweetcheeks.

jimmyjms 5 years, 4 months ago

"Oh my goodness!? Bush didn't “allow protest of ANY kind?” But…but…”free speech zones?” “Protest zones??” Why, that just can't be 'cuz jimmyjms said no protests were allowed, not of any kind. None. "

You think it's ok to sequester peaceful unarmed protesters miles away from a public event, and place them behind fences or in cages? That it's ok to make people remove their shirts due to what's on them, make them sign waivers stating that they support the president before they can enter into a public event?

But it's perfectly acceptable to bring guns to a presidential event?

Does this make any kind of sense to anyone but jaywalker and his ilk?

"All accounts I've read said it was a peaceful meeting and a peaceful protest, nothing “tense and heated” about it."

"“Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions"

"“It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication.”

“The larger the gun, the more menacing the situation,”

That's just from this article. A quick google shows more.

And then there's this:

"Activist Who Staged Gun Interview At Obama Event Was Prominent Defender Of '90s Militia"

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

Awesome! And smart.

grammaddy 5 years, 4 months ago

If the secret service has to watch these people who show up with their guns, it means they are NOT watching someone they probably need to. No guns around my President thank you. And how do we know these guys are not just a distraction for someone else who might put the POTUS in harm's way?

jimmyjms 5 years, 4 months ago

The wingnut solution: Hitler!

If that doesn't work, then mock!

Jewish guy "I had no insurance. I spent two hours in the emergency room. You know how much they charged me? $8,000."

Conservative super-bi*ch - "boo hoo."

Satirical 5 years, 4 months ago

jimmyjms....

How about you take your overused analogies, and ignorant stereotypes somewhere else. You are just as bad as the people you oppose. The sad thing is that you don't realize it.

drake 5 years, 4 months ago

I didn't bother to read all of the drivel above but I would be willing to bet $10,000 that some dimwit posted something about penis'.

I do think that it was unwise of the protesters to open carry guns at a presidential gathering though.

jimmyjms 5 years, 4 months ago

Satirical, what are you talking about?

The link is of a conservative heckling a Jewish supporter of healthcare reform by saying "heil hitler."

When he tries to engage her in actual discussion of the issue, she mocks him.

How is that stereotypical? It's certainly not an analogy.

Since you obviously didn't watch the video, which occurred yesterday and is certainly trenchant to the conversation, howsabout you mind your business?

The sad thing is, you probably don't even realize that you just personified the conservative position - uniformed, rude, and wrong.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

glockowner responded: "Would you argue that bringing a condom somewhere automatically assumes one will be having sex? Or perhaps wearing a seatbelt assumes one intends to crash?"

Yes, carrying a condom does mean that one is actively considering the possibility of having sex or actively seeking sex. Why carry one unless you plan to have sex?

And yes, wearing a seat belt is a nod to the tacit possibility of getting in an automobile crash.

And yes, carrying a gun brings with it the tacit assumption that the gun might be shot. Carrying a loaded gun only more so.

glockowner, by your logic, you should carry unloaded weapons or even fake guns.

But I think you know the real answer, that people carry gun with the assumption that it might be fired.

So, I ask you again, when is it safe to fire a weapon at a protest? When would a responsible gun owner safely fire his weapon at a protest?

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

To those gun nuts who claim to love and support the Constitution, I ask: Do you love the 16th amendment as much as the second?

"Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The 16th amendment is a much a part of the Constitution as the second.

Don't you just love it?

jumpin_catfish 5 years, 4 months ago

I love it, liberals going nuts, always a great day. I would imagine that a hidden special ops sniper was zeroed in on everyone opening sporting their gun.

kansasmutt 5 years, 4 months ago

Guns have a place, but not at a rally or even in the area of someone like the pres. that is one sure way to get our guns taken away, by acting like fools. Respect your pres , even if you dont like his plans. Vote for someone else next election, but to cary a gun to a townhall meeting, loose screw. I like my guns and you jerks are going to ruin it for the good folks who enjoy hunting and the idea of self protection. I think our pres has done ok and he hasnt done anything at all to efect gun ownership.

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

snap, yes, someone did mention it, to which I say -- so what? Why should race matter when it comes to a planned publicity stunt about guns? If he had been white, would you have bothered pointing that out too?

Didn't think so.

Flap Doodle 5 years, 4 months ago

bea, MSNBC was using this incident as an illustration of white racism. They edited the film to avoid showing that it was a black man. If they had been talking about threatening-looking black men and then used a partial photo of a white man, that would also have been wrong. That's less than telling the whole truth about the affair. But then telling the truth has fallen way down on the list of things the complaint media thinks is important. Who is posting under beo's name? He said he was leaving months ago & I wouldn't like to think he was not being truthful back then.

tomatogrower 5 years, 4 months ago

For someone who claims he never listens to Rush, Tom, sure does repeat a lot of Rush's sayings? How about thinking for yourself? You want everyone to think that you are so witty calling Obama's administration a "banana republic", but you are just Rush's little puppet.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/21/limbaugh-foia-bush/

gl0ck0wn3r 5 years, 4 months ago

"yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…So, I ask you again, when is it safe to fire a weapon at a protest? When would a responsible gun owner safely fire his weapon at a protest?"

I answered both of these questions. In response to your answers about my questions: my point is that you assume the act of merely carrying a weapon assumes one will fire it. I carry a weapon on a daily basis and have yet to fire it anywhere but a range. OMG I've even carried it inside notable Lawrence cafes and sat near local trust fund hippies! Is it possible one day I might have to fire it? Yes. I carry it for the same reason that people use other precautionary devices. This does not assume that I wish to fire it - much in the same way one wishes one will not have to call upon one's seat belt. Do I know why that guy chose to carry a weapon near a POTUS event? No. However, I can be pretty certain that if the Secret Service had no concerns, I shouldn't be worried. I'm pretty sure they have more experience than I do and, no doubt, there are far bigger concerns.

Further, your comment about the 16A is lame. The reverse version of this flawed comment is: since you seem to relish taxation (taxation nut?), one can assume you similarly support the 2A? Although there are some people who question taxation - much like many people here seem to question the 2A - most do not. Additionally, the 16A is certainly not a part of the Bill of Rights and comparing it to the 2A is much like comparing apples to oranges. Worst nightmare? To whom?

llama726 5 years, 4 months ago

"Would you argue that bringing a condom somewhere automatically assumes one will be having sex? Or perhaps wearing a seatbelt assumes one intends to crash?'

No. But my condom doesn't protect me from STD's by killing my potential sexual partner, and I have a feeling that (at least for me), when I meet someone where a condom would be necessary, well, that wouldn't be an emergency situation. The car, on the other hand, is a better point, but still- My seatbelt doesn't protect me from crashes by killing the other drivers on the road. In fact, a condom and a seatbelt are very different from a gun, and thusly, it's completely pointless to compare either of them to a gun.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

jimmyjms: "You think it's ok to sequester peaceful unarmed protesters miles away from a public event, and place them behind fences or in cages? That it's ok to make people remove their shirts due to what's on them, make them sign waivers stating that they support the president before they can enter into a public event?"

Sweet cheese and rice! I see you've gone to the porchperson school on how to 'argue': just make crappola up and/or distort the other's opinions.
I NEVER said "it was ok" to do any of that. I never gave any opinion whatsoever on ANY of that nonsense. You stated that Bush "allowed no protest of any kind". You were flat out wrong, you know it, move on.

Oh, and "miles away.....in cages"?! Pathetic, pal.

"But it's perfectly acceptable to bring guns to a presidential event?"

Never said that either. As a matter of fact, my repeated opinion was that it was a bad idea/bad judgement.

"Does this make any kind of sense to anyone but jaywalker and his ilk?"

My ilk? Oh, you mean sane people who don't have to exaggerate, distort, or flat out lie in order to rebutt a position? Grow up.

jimmysgotnuttinelse: "Let's meet up and discuss it, sweetcheeks."

Aah, the rejoinder of the witless. Don't think that'd be such a good idea, punkin'.
Or, if I misunderstand and that's a line, I'm flattered, but I'm not that kind of fella. Thanks though.

bondmen 5 years, 4 months ago

Because liberals emote rather than reason their feelings and emotions have a tendency to get the best of them; sound advice recommends they leave sharp objects plus their guns and rifles, locked up at home before entering a public protest. Mentally, liberalism is a handicap which makes good decisions difficult and sound judgments rare.

Without the 2nd Amendment there would be no 1st Amendment.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

glockowner, you are dodging my question but have answered it uwittingly. You carry a gun wih the recognition that you might fire it.

Do not bother attempting to answer my question of when one might fire a weapon safely at a protest.

If you claim you have answered it, please answer it explicity here again, because I am still in the dark about your answer.

Or don't bother.

So, you think the Bill of Rights is a more important section of the Constitution than the other Amendments? Why is this? Where is the term "Bill of Rights" used in the Constitution? Where in ther Constitution does it say that the first ten amendments are more important than all others?

In the future, please refrain from saying you love the Constitution, as it is clear you love just the second amendment (and maybe the first at times).

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

And glockowner, I support the second amendment as much as any other.

What I do not support is the irresponsible use and brandishing of firearms, which is an abuse of this right of americans to own weapons as spelled out in the second amendment.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

glockowner said: "Worst nightmare? To whom?"

To you, apparently.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

I'm blown away by how big a fool you're willing to show yourself for, porch, again and again and again. The Sotomayor quote had nothing to do with race and everything to do with the blown out of proportion quote of hers. And the Imus related retort of, "Yeah, that's what I said", was nothing but sarcasm directed back at your ridiculous question, not an affirmation that those were my thoughts on the matter. If your pea brain can't wrap around that concept, allow me to dumb it down for ya:

"Of course I'm not ok with it, moron. That's not what I said. How stupid can you be?!"

Better?

You've been told and shown these things countless times, yet you prefer to play the fool, make stuff up, distort and lie.
You can regurgitate those quotes all you want, but it will never make your idiotic claims true. You coudn't possibly be more pathetic.

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

glock: "However, I can be pretty certain that if the Secret Service had no concerns, I shouldn't be worried."

No, the Secret Service said that the President was never in danger. That is quite different from "no concern." Besides, what do you expect the Secret Service to say -- that they were highly concerned? Please. They are going to keep a brave face and assure everyone's safety no matter what.

jimmyjms 5 years, 4 months ago

Jesus, but the jaywalker is a dense item.

"You stated that Bush “allowed no protest of any kind”. You were flat out wrong, you know it, move on."

Yes, I absolutely equate the type of limitations that Bush put on free speech to the negation of that right.

Not only do those efforts violate the right to gather and voice ones opinion, but they go so far as to squelch dissent altogether - the dissent that dips**ts like you claim as the reason for the townhall BS.

As for your last rejoinder:

"Or, if I misunderstand and that's a line, I'm flattered, but I'm not that kind of fella. Thanks though."

I don't think that being gay is wrong, or a punchline. But we both know what I meant. You'd hardly be such a dick in person, as the need to see a dentist would arise quickly.

gl0ck0wn3r 5 years, 4 months ago

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says… glockowner said: “Worst nightmare? To whom?”

To you, apparently


Um, no. Could you please define brandishing?


"beatrice (Anonymous) says…No, the Secret Service said that the President was never in danger. That is quite different from “no concern.” Besides, what do you expect the Secret Service to say — that they were highly concerned? Please. They are going to keep a brave face and assure everyone's safety no matter what."

If the Secret Service had a concern, the guy wouldn't have been there. They do not fool around and know their business. What do I expect them to say? I don't know, I was judging by their actions and their actions indicate they were much less concerned by this citizen than you.

beatrice 5 years, 4 months ago

glock: "they were much less concerned by this citizen than you."

Please show me where I voiced concern. All I stated, by the way, is that there might be a backlash against gun owners over this type of ridiculous display, and other gun owners apparently agree.

It was a stupid publicity stunt. Kind of like having freedom of speech, so someone demonstrates it by standing outside of a church and speak profanities at those who enter. See, that too would be a stupid display. Having the right to do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. As far as your juding the Secret Service by their actions, were you in Phoenix for the event? Were you privy to the services they provided in "secret"? Of course not, so you don't have a clue about what you are writing. The guy wasn't breaking the law so he wasn't taken away, as you think, even if he was being the fool. Just because someone isn't taken away doesn't mean they aren't a concern for the police and the Secret Service.

The very fact that they even recognized his presence proves that he was, on some level, a concern.

I think it would have been great if a liberal had put a flower in the barrel. That would be funny.

yourworstnightmare 5 years, 4 months ago

glockowner, it is clear you are done.

You have no rational arguments forthcoming and are resorting to ad hominem and subject changing. You can define brandishing as well as I.

I am a bit disappointed, as I have often found that I agree with some of your posts. However, your utter lack of rational argumentation and stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong is quite disappointing.

The second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and our Supreme Court recently ruled that it was a personal right and not just a collective, militia right.

It is the irresponsibility that these gun owners have shown by bringing their loaded weapons to a peaceful gathering that I take issue with. It is immature and childish, and it certainly does not respect the second amendment. In many ways it mocks it.

If you wish to enter into rational discussions and arguments, I suggest you come prepared with actual rational arguments based upon facts. It is clear you were not prepared for this one.

jonas_opines 5 years, 4 months ago

"Because liberals emote rather than reason their feelings and emotions have a tendency to get the best of them."

Wow, talk about irony.

"You should be afraid of Barrack Obama!! He's a Socialist(tm)!"

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

porch,

You need serious, serious help. Nothin' left to be said.

jimmyjms,

"No protest of any kind" NOW means "limitations". Gotcha.

Just you keep playin' the 'bad mamma jamma', pards. You gettin' disappeareded merely means one less troll, and no loss to the IQ of the boards. And to refresh your memory, I answered your question and then brought up a seperate point to the attention of the whole forum. It was you who initiated the ill will. To the 'niceties', all I've done is respond in kind. Shocker that you can't handle that either. You wanna make semi-veiled threats on an internet forum because someone made you look silly? Ooooo, the future sure looks bright for you! You're gonna go...cough...far, uh huh. But hey, between you, porch, and bozo that discount on group therapy is lookin' pretty sweet, eh?

gl0ck0wn3r 5 years, 4 months ago

"yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…You have no rational arguments forthcoming and are resorting to ad hominem and subject changing. You can define brandishing as well as I."

The reason I asked for you to define it is because you clearly have no idea about which you speak. Brandishing typically has a specific legal definition that is quite different than simply carrying. The two terms are not the same in this context and using brandish implies something that is not true in this case. Regarding personal attacks, I'm really not clear where that took place - but whatever.

jaywalker 5 years, 4 months ago

"you know how what-you-typed reads to the reader"

I missed this gem. No, porchie, I'm disappointed how what I typed can be misconstrued and misrepresented by a moron. You've brought this crappola up a dozen times and never had a single backer come to your defense. That would speak volumes to ya if you weren't hearing voices.

(laughter!)

Commenting has been disabled for this item.