Talk Elections

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457652/ns/politics-white_house/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457652/ns/politics-white_house/)


what do assault rifles have to do with health care reform?

From your link:
A semi-automatic rifle is NOT an "assault rifle".



I don't know why somebody would bring one to a town hall meeting, but what he did was perfectly legal (as it should be).

It's a general demonstration of liberty.

No idea, he probably brought it just in case things get ugly (if he's a sane).

To kill things. Why else would anyone bring a gun anywhere?

Did he now?

Right, everytime anybody has ever brought a gun anywhere their intention was to kill.  Your logic is astonishing.

That's Rhode Scholarship material right there.

I don't like deadman, but hes cooking them here.

I don't know why else you would own a gun. To look cool? To pretend to kill things? The purpose of a gun is to kill or seriously injure.

Yes, we understand that you don't get it.  You don't need to go on and on about it.

Still haven't pointed out what's wrong with my logic. If the purpose of a gun is to kill or seriously injure and we assume that these people aren't bringing guns to these things randomly but for a reason, then it makes sense that they're bringing the gun with violent intentions.

Well why hasn't any of them tried acting out these "violent intentions"?

So why hasn't there been any violent actions?  You'd have to ask the individuals bringing guns to these events what their specific reasons for bringing them, I don't live in their head.  I'm sure somebody has asked them....from the link in the OP:But your logic that the purpose of bringing a gun somewhere is only to kill or seriously injure is what keeps bringing me back.  Do the police plan on killing everyday?  Does the guy making large cash drops for his business plan on shooting somebody every time he carries?  Guys going to shoot skeet?  Plexico Burress?


Nobody expects you to change your mind, you've clearly had it made up for so long you're above doing any research on the subject.  Just like all gun control advocates.

My favorite part is that all the articles I've seen on this are calling them "assault rifles".  It's not like we've never had this discussion before.  And everytime we do, "assault rifle" is always defined and the gun control fundies corrected....and yet here we are again. 

Facts have a liberal bias my ass.  Good thing they've never blasted anybody for using "scary" words to get a biased point across.

These nutjobs are neither police officers or security guards. And they certainly aren't going to these things to shoot skeet...

But whatever. Clearly, anyone who ever carries a gun with him anywhere is a freedom fighter exercising his rights and anyone who raises the slightest concern is a fascist.

Yet I never claimed they were.  I believe there is a term for that type of argument.

Have you got any theories as to why there has been no violence at one of these yet?  Tough one isn't it?


On the other hand, it's probaby best if you duck out now.  Maybe a new day will bring you some back up with better arguments.

Plenty of reasons why there thankfully hasn't been violence yet. For one, most of these people are paranoid and insecure cowards. The delusional fear they have of black helicopters or socialism extends to these situations; behind their big guns, they're scared little people. Second, luckily police have been at most of these things, to keep things from spiraling out of control. They've been kept in designated areas away from the politicians with whose blood they'd like to water that tree of liberty of theirs. Lastly, some of these people no doubt want to convey only the threat of killing/injury/violence, so that debate is stifled and people, not wishing to endanger themselves for a political issue, shut up.

But you said people dont bring gun places for reasons other to kill and maim...were you wrong then?I'm sure you truly believe this.  I have no idea whether it's true or not.  Probably is for some, not for others.  Stereotyping with preconceived notions is certainly the easy way.As they should be.  You'd think if they were there for blood they would have made a scene instead of just standing there talking to the people that talk to them.But they are too scared to act right?Ahhh, like Teamsters! or Black Panthers at voting booths!

As I wrote a couple of days ago, considering the history of political assasinations and overall violence by right-wing extremists, whoever talks about people just exercising their second amendment rights is either dangerously naive or dangerously cavalier.

You think the police and Secret Service are going to let a dude get in sight of Obama with an AR-15 on his back?  Somebody is naive here and it ain't people talking about exercising their second amendment rights.  I think it's the people hiding weapons we should be worried about, not proudly strapped to their thigh or across their back.  Not so oddly, the police and Secret Service agree with me.

These people are bringing these weapons to threaten their political opponents with murder.

It really is almost unbelievable how low the US has fallen to be allowing this sort of behavior.

So, what you are saying is that the presence of police and secret service is proof that these people aren't dangerous?
I'm sorry but I can't follow your logic.

And since when are death threats and calls for insurrection considered acceptable political behavior?

And by the way, I remember that they have already apprehended a man who tried to enter one of these town halls with a concealed weapon.   

No, I'm saying these people aren't dangerous because they are not acting dangerous.  If they were, the police and SS would be do something about them.

They aren't, have any of the gun carriers made death threats and calls for insurrection?  If they have, they should be investigated...just like anybody that makes a threat towards a sitting (or former) President.

(I'll concede "watering the tree of liberty" can sound a bit scary when the guy is carrying...but that doesn't mean he's about to start popping caps in asses anymore than a guy hanging Bush the Lesser in effigy is about to start stringing up Republicans)

Good, then they were doing their job.  I hope the guy is treated appropriately.


What do you think should be done to these people? (not the guy sneaking in with a gun, just the guys standing in approved protest zones)

In an idea world they would be arrested for carrying a gun around in public, the gun would be confiscated, and they'd spend a few months in jail.

Thankfully we don't live in your ideal world.

What? Most presidential assassins have been left leaning individuals.

Well, there were much more explicit threats than that. A guy was holding a sign saying "Death to Obama, Michelle and their stupid kids".
Alan Keyes said the other day at one of those gatherings that it is the patriotic duty of Americans to stop Obama, "by any means necessary".
How do you think a nutjob would interpret a statement like that?


I think that they should detain these guys for a little chat and background check, just in case there is a Tim McVeigh in the making among them.

Quietly investigate the dudes with "death" signs.  I have no idea what to do about Keyes and others like him....he shouldn't be saying things like that though, I can agree there.Detain?  Question, of course.  No detaining unless they have further reason to be suspicious.

The logic is if they intended to commit violent acts they would have.  The purpose of carrying a gun is for self-defense, a noble cause

I can't wait to see how many guns will be brandished at the G20, since PA is an open carry state.

Whether that is 'the purpose' or not is entirely unknown to us, and anyway can change instantly at the whim of the gun-weilder, Down.  I think it is absurd to accept that these thugs think someone is going to attack them at a town-hall meeting, but even assuming that is the case (perhaps they're extreme cowards), it is quite possible that they will become enraged due to someone speaking in a liberal fashion and begin spraying bullets into the darker portions of the crowd. 

The point is that 'the purpose' of carrying a gun is not really very relevant to what the gun is actually used for.

How can you pretend to be a serious person, deadman, and condone people bringing guns to public political forums?  You are entirely discrediting yourself as a poster here.

Imagine yourself having a political argument, not through the safe medium of the internet as we do here, but toe to toe with a large, sweaty, stinking human male, filled with hatred and hormones, who not only disagrees with you, but thinks that your opinion is a direct attack on his prerogatives and privileges, and that said opinion makes you a criminal and a danger to 'the nation'.  Now, add to that he is brandishing a death-dealing weapon.  Do you really think it is reasonable to just go ahead and attempt to have a political discussion?  Is it really safe to just assume that he has the weapon there just 'for self defense' or some other mysterious purpose?

why do people bring assault rifles to obama healthcare rallies because there bats@#T f@#king crazy. a Healthcare town hall meeting were emotion's run high could easily lead to violence its not the proper place to bring a gun. I say that as somebody who believes people should have the right to bear arms as long as it says so in the Constitution.   

Jesus fucking christ people are stupid. Do you really think these people were carrying around exposed and loaded AR-15's just for protection? I know people who carry guns for protection and they are always concealed, small pistols. Those are for self-defense. When the fuck would you need to use AR-15's ever, unless you were being targeted by a drug cartel?

I'm not for gun control in any way either, I just find the far-right's mentality here to be bordering on insanity. There is something wrong with people carrying exposed powerful semi-automatic weapons at political rallies. Sure they might have the right to do so but just because you have the right to shove a dildo up your asshole doesn't mean it is a wise or noble idea. The same applies for bringing exposed and loaded weapons to political rallies.

if other people are bringing guns to healthcare rallies, I think I'm gonna have to bring mine there too in order to defend myself

To take out RPGs, obviously.

Usually Presidents (or other persons) get assassinated by people who hide their guns, not those who carry them out in the open.

Just something to think about.

Obviously but it doesn't make these people any less disturbing.

I'm telling  you, boys and girls, the G-20 is going to be the frigging wild west here.

Thank you for contributing an irrelevancy.  

The crazies with the guns are not very likely to manage to assassinate, but they are very likely to kill someone purely on impulse.  The whole danger of having ordinary fools walking around with guns is that ordinary fools get angry.  Ordinary fools, particularly the right-wing american variety, are very excitable and only marginally in touch with reality.  

Yes, we may feel some comfort in knowing that their incompetence means important people will probably escape their murderous wrath, but does that mean we need have no concern whatever for public safety?

Because guns have everything to do with health care reform. My liberties will not be stepped on. Read the constitution, Aizen. >:(>:(

It's an attempt to suppress opposition by using intimidation and fear. In other words, it's terrorism.

I agree.
I just disagree with people who say everybody who owns a gun has an intent to kill.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well said!!

Especially that renowned communist James Wilkes Booth.

If I had to guess a reason, it would be because it pisses off them thare liburals. Seriously. A big hubbub was made about the guy who had a handgun in open carry, so I think this is just a counter-reaction.

Just my two cents on this topic.

I find it odd that no one has mentioned in this whole hes carrying it for protection ever takes that to its next logical step.  What if the person with his weapon decided he was threaten(whatever that's means, and one could feel that way very easily in a situation such as these) and decided to use it.  In a crowd like these there is little reliability that the person would find his target especially with a semi or fully automatic weapons whose accuracy are far from ideal in the best of hands and at the least of stressful situations.  This would cause something similar to Kent state except i worry that both sides would become violent.  Sometimes ones right should be decreased in situations so as to foster safety and calm for all involved.  Let alone this is a health care debate and not a gun rights debate. There is no analogous here no matter what slippery slope someone might try to make. 

I like owning guns there fun to shoot, i don't particularly like hunting more so due to my suckage at it than anything else.  But just because i like my gun and owning it doesn't mean i need to carry my weapon every where i go.  If i was going into bad parts of Indy when i worked there i always did.  Also i always take it when I'm going on a long trip that involves night driving but those are responsible uses.  Just because it is technically right doesn't mean that it is right.  We should not be applauding these people but condemning and ostracizing them.  You don't need to make new laws but as a community if we say this is not the correct behavior and show these people as the fools they are, not some kinda freedom fighting heroes, the same goal will be achieved.  Just my opinion we all i have one who knows if my is good.  Time to go drink beer, watch baseball, and forgot about politics.

Well, let 'em do it. It's there responsibility if they screw up. And that gives us the legal authority to crack down on them and basically lock not just conservatives in Congress out of the debate, but the conservative movement out of the debate. That's what employers do to strikers when they reasonably thing there is going to be a strike.

Of course, I do too. Maybe kill to protect themselves, but not to kill innocent bystanders.

For the same reason that people aren't enslaved there.

Because you never know when a health care debate could turn into a slave auction.

Hmmm...I thought of this a while ago...
I helped my parents sell a litter of Corgi puppies over the summer. We got them sold for $350 a peice. Provided that this is a recession, I would say that the FMV in economically stable times is about $500. Now. Each Corgi puppy weighs 10 pounds and therefore sell for about $3-5 an once. This is roughly the old price for Silver when there was no hyper-inflation of metal prices. Therefore, it seems reasonable that a slave, with no physical (not fat,ugly or crippled) or mental(can do almost any task you need him/her to do) defects, should sell for the old price of gold, or $300-$500 an once ($5000 a pound, instead of $50/lb for the Corgis). Therefore, we can make a pricelist-

Slave Baby
$ 100,000
Slave Child
$ 250, 000
Slave Woman/sex slave
$1,000,000
Slave Man/eunuch to guard your sex slaves
$2,000,000

So yes....with me coming up with these prices, those rednecks are wise to arm themselves to the teeth...especially because I am not scared to "make" eunuchs.

If a thousand people bring guns to these things over the next weeks and months and nobody gets shot and nobody dies, will you guys change your minds about anything?  Not that I'd expect the nutty gun control fundies to ever change their mind about anything, but a few of you on the left actually know how to change your mind.



(and I should mention again that I don't own a gun and have never owned a gun.  No/little need.)

Why would one change one's mind in that case?  The one-thousand-and--first could still shoot a bunch of people.  The point about guns is they make getting murdered much more likely and feasible.

No, it would still be a stupid move and would be a form of intimidation.

()

I wouldn't mind running into her at a rally ;)

I actually saw Ann Coulter argue that Booth was an outspoken "pacifist" and a man of the left. States is the kind of person who's dumb enough to believe that... if he didn't already hail Booth as a brave patriot.

No one brought a gun so they could kill anyone.  However, they certainly didn't bring guns because they expected to have to "protect themselves".

They brought guns in the hope of starting a fight.  Or perhaps in the hope of being arrested and becoming martyrs. Joe the Plumber had his 15 minutes.  Now, it's someone else's turn.

Quite true, Jim.  We had someone in Beaver County arrested for open-carrying while candidate Obama was there.  He was in the proper roped off area for protestors but he was arrested for carrying a gun and bible (obvious reference to Obama's statement).   LOTS OF HOOPLA......went to court.......charges tossed.