such a big deal made over something which ended up being nothing

[bossy22]

i see lately there have been many posts regarding the individual who (stupidly or not- your choice) carried a gun to a political rally/town hall meeting. Personally, i think we should all calm down and look at the actual events. First off...no one got hurt....could'a, would'a, almost doesnt matter...the only thing that matters is that no one got hurt. Yes, i think the guy shouldnt have been carrying a firearm that close to the president...i think its a sign of poor judgment, but he didnt hurt anyone...and he probably had no intentions of hurting anyone and was making a political statement- wrong it may be.

on edit: and to those who think this event will bring change to the culture of firearm ownership of this country, i suggest you dont hold your breath...because almost only counts in horse shoes and with hand grenades

[geckosfeet]

1. Wrong way to make a political statement. The guy is a hick and simply

does not know any better.

I would be good with concealed carry but this guy was just wagging it in public.

[bossy22]

3. agreed

i think he exercised poor judgment in carrying a firearm in that matter during such an event

[jeepnstein]

2. The whole country is on edge.

Or so it seems some times. Any time there is sweeping political or economic change in our society we have episodes like this. Some folks see the health care issue as their last chance to make a stand.

The manners many folks display in this country today are appalling.

[spin]

4. It's fairly obvious that the guy...

who I would describe as an idiot, meant no harm. He was merely attempting to gain attention and his fifteen minutes of fame. He succeeded.

Unfortunately, he made responsible gun owners look bad.

When I lived in Tampa, often the President or Presidential candidates would visit. Usually, I avoided the event as I'm not fond of large crowds or traffic jams. If I did decide to go anywhere near the event, I left my concealed carry weapon behind.

The security is so good that anywhere near the event is possibly the safest area in the country.

[Wickerman]

5. I think the combination of his poster AND the gun

were a shade too provocative for civilized and polite discussion. I'm a little tired of the attention addicts on the right.

[gorfle]

87. I admire his actions.

Frankly, I admire the guy's guts. I don't agree with his politics, and I would much rather have seen people like this protesting in this manner over things like the War in Iraq, or torturing people, or the suspension of habeus corpus, but nonetheless, the man was lawfully exercising both his right to keep and bear arms and his right to free political speech.

But moreover, he was expressing the sentiment that our founders very much intended - the people have the ultimate means to rebuke their government should it turn tyrannical.

Whether the government warrants such sentiment is only a matter of how many people share his view. If it's one or a few, they're considered nuts. If it's a hundred million, it's something else.

This man is a warning that everyone should take heed of - he is the canary in the coal mine. Any revolution will likely build on a bell curve. At one end you have the fringe of people who call for revolution early. At the other end you have the fringe of people who will never rebel. And in the middle you have the mainstream.

Right now we are starting to see the fringe of those calling for revolution early. I am all for change, and I am gleefully happy to see the change we have no vs. the last 8 years. But not everyone is. Right or wrong, change too quickly and people may rebel - peacefully or otherwise.

As I said, don't get me wrong - it would be wrong to use force or violence or the threat of either in the face of a functioning democracy, which we still have. But push a significant number of people into a place where they feel unrepresented by their government and you'll end up with another Civil War.

[Jackson1999]

95. It seems that....

if it was the gun OR the sign, he would have been fine. But it was the combo-rights that got him. Intellectually I agree he has the right, but dude, come on.

I also thing that, once again, the media totally overplayed this. This guy was no where near the security perimeter. Tweety's head almost exploded.

[gorfle]

96. It's really simple.

This guy made a very strong political statement:

I am willing to shoot tyrants.

Our founders would be proud of that sentiment.

Now what they would not be proud of are such sentiments being expressed when we are not in the grip of tyranny, as this individual thinks we are. They would consider it blasphemous to use force in the face of a working democratic republic functioning as it should. The fact that our last election brought us such radical change is proof positive that our system still works, and we are far from tyranny.

But the fact that there are people to publicly show that they are willing to shoot tyrants is heartening. I wish we had seen more of it during Bush's term. That was tyrannical.

[MUAD_DIB]

6. Poor judgment...

What is the measure between poor judgment and a willful act of violence?

[vincna]

8. I think the operative word is "act"

The guy was rude and a jerk, but he did not act violently nor did he break the law. There are many ways you can legally be an asshole.

I'm struggling to envision a willful act of violence that does not involve action of some kind.

[MUAD_DIB]

9. Yup. The operative word is act.

Like at the Holocaust Museum.

Like Dr. Tiller's assassination.


Like some lunatic getting a shot off near or at the President of the United States.

[vincna]

10. You are correct.

All of those things involve action

[bossy22]

13. they all involved an action

which didn't happen during this incident

no one is condoning his actions, but i feel we shouldn't jump off the deep end with them. There are many idiots in this world

[MUAD_DIB]

41. Show me where I jumped off the deep end.

[bossy22]

44. my apologies

i didnt mean you per se, i meant the DU community as a whole in regard to these incidents

[MUAD_DIB]

48. Oh, that. Yep. I've experienced...read mostly...that myself.

I just find it irritatingly dumb that the asshole had the idea of bringing a firearm where the POTUS would shortly be.

These kooks are just testing the waters to see how threatening they can be.

[bossy22]

50. i concur

i consider myself extremal pro-gun rights but i dont think i'd ever carry a gun, concealed or openly to a place where the president would be to make a political statement

[paulsby]

12. case law.

see: brandenburg etc.

bad judgment? imo, yes.

clearly legal though.

provocative? yes. fwiw, our country was founded with a 1st amendment that protects provocative speech

[sharesunited]

7. That bling is never fashionable and any jackass who wears it should be shunned.

Unless you are wearing an authorized uniform and badge.

[bossy22]

11. its not designed to be fashionable

its designed to serve a purpose, and usually that purpose is a defensive one. I don't have a fire extinguisher in my car because it looks good

"That bling is never fashionable and any jackass who wears it should be shunned."
that statement is just a shining beacon of tolerance dont ya think?

[sharesunited]

14. Zero tolerance for guns in the populace is something for which I proudly stand.

[bossy22]

15. zero tolerance

in most situations is a very bad concept

it gave us the Rockefeller drug laws, the rise of the mafia.....

i prefer reasoned discourse...some how things turn out better when logic and reason is brought into a situation

[sharesunited]

16. Would you have the same criticism of zero tolerance for kiddie porn?

[bossy22]

17. its a complicated answer

the actual object- that being child pornography- serves absolutely no positive purpose

the person who possess or indulges in such- well thats a different story, before i lock them up and throw away the key its more important to know why they felt the need to participate in such an act...i am not so quick to jump on someone just because they have been accused of committing such act

this is not to say i condone child pornography....i do not....but i am not so absolutist to say that anybody who looks at child pornography should get a 20 year mandatory sentence...no exceptions

on edit: though guns serve negative purposes, they also can serve positive ones

[sharesunited]

20. When cornered, 2A defenders abandon their weighing of positive vs. negative.

They say I Want A Gun Because I Can.

They say I Want A Gun Because It Is My "Right."

They say I Want A Gun Because Everyone Else Has One.

[bossy22]

68. positive v negative balancing

isnt the only way us "2a defenders" defend gun ownership...what tips the scale is that it is a right

you would lose alot of rights if you used only the positive vs negative test....hey how about we go to the french system of justice...prove your innocence...in fact that system probably has more positive than negatives...the only real negatives is that there is a greater chance an innocent person will go to jail...

"They say I Want A Gun Because It Is My "Right."" Well it is....you keep saying it isnt but you fail to provide any evidence or facts to support your statement. You make your statement, than ridicule us for being against it. We at least have a SCOTUS case on our side...what do you have?...the miller case?

i suggest you read this little tid bit about the great miller case http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv3/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__journal_of_law_and_liberty/documents/documents/ecm_pro_060964.pdf

[vincna]

18. Nice try...

Gun ownership by law abiding citizens and kiddie porn are not the same thing. One is reprehensible and illegal (probably under under both federal and state law), while the other is protected by our constitution. It's still your move.

[sharesunited]

19. If you say civilians with guns is a 2A right, then go ahead and justify why KP is not a 1A right.

Which causes more grievous bodily harm and death?

[vincna]

21. Kiddie porn harms a child, both emotionally and physically...

and children are not in a position to defend themselves or in some cases, even understand what is going on. Since they aren't capable of protecting themselves, we have laws that are designed to do that. The need to have such laws is so obvious that only an idiot would ask why the activity isn't constitutionally protected. Criminals cause grevious bodily harm and death (sometimes with guns, sometimes with knives, sometimes with blunt instruments, etc.) and that activity is also illegal. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do no such thing. The legal use of firearms is protected; illegal use is not.

[sharesunited]

24. "Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens do no such thing."

How very convenient.

Parents, mainly fathers, who shoot their children are law abiding citizens right up to the moment they aren't.

Children who shoot themselves and each other with guns manufactured to supply this sick American appetite have no criminal culpability at all, in most cases.

How very very convenient.

[vincna]

27. Gun ownership involves responsibility, as do other things

If you drive, you have a responsibility not to drive drunk (among many other things). If you allow children access to firearms you are being grossly negligent and breaking the law. BTW, Children are sometimes charged as adults, but that is not really a firearms issue. A parent shooting their child (accidentally, I hope) would be tragic and would almost certainly involve negligence and likely criminality. There are many things that can cause injury or death if not used responsibly. Why are you so focused on firearms?

[sharesunited]

29. They are intended and designed to kill. That is a purpose inappropriate for popular consumption.

[vincna]

30. The Framers put the 2nd Amendment there for a reason.

It was to protect an inalienable right - the right to self defense. Sometimes that requires the use of deadly force and the Framers knew that. Do you not believe that people should have such a right?

[sharesunited]

37. That so-called right has been twisted and contorted far beyond the framers' ability to recognize it.

If it is there at all for personal protection (and not just for a well regulated militia as the damned thing reads), then they would have needed it only to protect themselves against a single-shot, front-loading flintlock.

What are we doing letting anything more sophisticated loose in society?

The claimed need to defend yourself against anything more sophisticated is circular, since tolerating proliferation of the more advanced technology precedes any such need to defend against it.

And of course, the runaway brilliance of the death dealing technology is what has brought us to the sorry state we are in.

In short, the Second Amendment has been exaggerated in its Constitutional importance by those persons who simply love guns. No legitimate reason exists for the interpretation we are suffering with.

[bossy22]

47. framers intent is only part of it

what the framers intended is important, yes...but its not the whole package....interpreting constitutional provisions is much more than that. If we just stopped at original intent....we wouldnt have such things as a right to privacy or woman's right to choose (i highly doubt the founders intended for abortions to be widely legal)....what people seem to forget is that public opinion plays a great deal how rights are interpreted today. Maybe back in the 18th century the second amendment was intended to be mostly a collective right, but post reconstruction it took on a new meaning and became individualistic...and we have to interpret the clause with that in mind.

if you want to learn more...i suggest you read this article by Prof. Akhil Amar, one of the leading experts on post-reconstruction constitutional interpretation and specifically the 14th amendment. http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/amar.pdf .....in short his article talks about how that 14th amendment redefined the rights in our constitution

[SteveM]

73. Your trumped-up moral rigidity is matched by your broken record (nt)

[SteveM]

72. More moral proclamations about "popular consumption"...

Yours is an authoritarian bent not founded on law or the constitution. You wish to dictate your morals over others' morals. Marxists used to call this the "New Man" theory: you pass all manner of rigid, authoritarian laws in order to force people into a different set of values and thinking in record speed; sort of like the various Great Leaps Forward when used on an industrial scale. All these failed. The only reason I see why you would pursue such a bankrupt policy is that you enjoy the prospect of imposing your sense of moral rectitude on others. Should there be resistance, you would further enjoy the prospect of punishing others.

BTW, there are a significant number of firearms used in Olympic shooting sports and long-range target shooting which are not designed to kill others. That they can be used as such is no different than the "altered" use of a butcher knife.

Finally, my guns ARE designed to kill. All but one is designed to kill animals I eat. The one remaining is designed to stop -- even kill -- those who threaten my life. That, buddy, is an entirely appropriate use, above and beyond your clumsy and inappropriate term "popular consumption."

[proteus_lives]

36. You are a one-trick pony.

I've rarely seen anything from you other then "kiddie porn!" and meaningless emotions.

[sharesunited]

38. The kiddie porn analogy is a crystal clear and apt one. Something inherently harmful.

For which society has adopted a zero tolerance.

That's where we need to be going with guns and ammo.

[proteus_lives]

45. You just mentioned the flaw.

" Something inherently harmful."

Guns are not inherently harmful.


"That's where we need to be going with guns and ammo."

Get ready for a lifetime of disappointment. That will never happen in the United States. Thank Goodness.

[sharesunited]

49. Guns and ammo are as inherently harmful as images are. And obviously more so.

It may not take the rest of my life to see it, if the spree killing gets outrageous enough.

Until then, of course, from the gun worshippers it will be the usual Such A Tragedy, Now Carry On Dying Everyone.

[proteus_lives]

55. Wow. Such delusions.

An inanimate object requires human intent.

That is the fatal flaw of you grabbers and why you will always be tilting at windmills. You refuse to blame the human behind the gun. You refuse to tackle the cultural and social issues behind violence.

I can understand why you don't. It's much harder then the easy road you've taken. Just ban an object you think is scary and pat yourself on the back. Most people blame a person for their actions. That's why your agenda is doomed to fail.

[sharesunited]

58. Believe me, I know it is the human and his frailties behind the gun.

Which is why he should not have it in the first place, because his frailties are universal and chronic.

[proteus_lives]

61. Wow, you're a nanny-stater aren't you?

Ready to give up everything to authority. Any other rights we're not able to handle?

Newsflash, books and ideas have led to more deaths then guns ever will. Is book-banning next on your agenda?

[sharesunited]

63. Words motivating people to point guns at other people? Is that the problem with words?

No, it's guns yet again.

[proteus_lives]

65. Before there were guns, people pointed swords.

You're willfully missing the point. By your logic, the words should be banned because people can't "handle" them.

[iverglas]

64. oooooooooooh

WATCH out.

Next thing, he's going to be calling people liberals.

[proteus_lives]

67. Don't worry.

I would never call him or you a liberal. Neither of you deserve that title.

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. Well, you *do* steadfastly defend someone elses's right to agree with you!

n/t

[iverglas]

79. keerist, wasn't that pointless

I also steadfastly defend your right to stick your head in a bucket.

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. I take it you object to * that* definition of a liberal then?

Snork.

[iverglas]

89. I was supposed to understand that I was being insulted

by being called a "liberal" according to some unhumourous daffynition.

Iiii get it.

Well, I'd be insulted if you just called me a "liberal" according to the real definition. So that was a waste of time, wasn't it?

The thing is that, knowing that the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, I wouldn't join in your jollity at liberal-mocking, because yours would be based on falsehood, while mine is based on history.

I'm a social democrat: as left as possible in the circumstances.

Oh, I know. Another cultural allusion nobody will get.

http://www.salon.com/ent/music/vowe/1999/01/27vowe.html

In a recent panel discussion at New York's 92nd Street Y called "Why Are Canadians So Funny?" moderator (and Vancouver native) Michael J. Fox mentioned a contest once sponsored by MacLean's magazine. MacLean's, which Fox identified as the "Canadian Time" (as is the Canadian comparative habit), once asked its readers to fill in the blank at the end of the phrase, "As Canadian as ..." to counterbalance the motto "As American as apple pie." According to Fox, the winning entry was "As Canadian as ... possible under the circumstances."

[iverglas]

32. okay, that's just sad

Gun ownership by law abiding citizens and kiddie porn are not the same thing. One is reprehensible and illegal (probably under under both federal and state law), while the other is protected by our constitution. It's still your move.

I'll play.

You do realize that saying something is "reprehensible and illegal" is nothing more than stating
(a) your opinion, and
(b) a tautology.

You don't like it.
And it's illegal because there's a law against it.

Fuckin duh.

Let's reconstruct your little problematic parallel there.

One is speech.
The other is firearms ownership.

One is protected under your Constitution.
The other is protected under your Constitution.


I think it's your move.

[vincna]

34. See Post No. 21

Children have rights too, and the state protects those rights because they can't. If you want to defend kiddie porn, then have at it.

[iverglas]

53. aren't you a charmer

I'm not defending anything. So take your If you want to defend kiddie porn, then have at it, add some cream and sugar, and enjoy it for breakfast.

I'm asking you to defend the position you took.

What you've offered so far was a pointless dog's breakfast.

I see post 21. That is my assessment.

I'll ask you what I've already asked:

How does someone's possession of a photograph of a naked child, say 20 years after the photograph was taken, harm the child?

POSSESSION of child pornography is illegal, you'll recall. Not just making it.

Possession of images is an exercise of the right of free speech.

Would you like to take your turn over, and offer some rational justification for outlawing it in this instance?

I can do that very easily myself, but we need you to offer something besides your opinion, a tautology, and an irrelevant outburst, before we can move forward.

I will look forward to what you have.


html fixed

[sharesunited]

59. I might be able to at least articulate the rationale for zero tolerance of these images.

The societal harm is argued to be twofold:

1. Possession is symptomatic of demand for such images, which demand is presumed to invite future creation of them with resulting abuse and exploitation of children.

and

2. Such images are used to groom and condition children to accept their own abuse and exploitation.

The kind of harm being addressed by the prohibition is mainly psychological / developmental, though physical abuse is certainly involved.

Yet we tolerate the death, wounding, and crippling of children as a consequence of our national hunger for guns and ammo.

The First Amendment has been duly limited to prevent harm.

Let's limit the Second accordingly.

[sharesunited]

40. Now you're catching on. The issue isn't rights so much as a social compact to limit those rights.

[iverglas]

51. I'm catching on?

My dear, I have given classes in this stuff. ;)


Oh, and I don't concur in your reasoning, but there is other good reasoning to reach similar conclusions.

[rl6214]

97. Someone on this site once said

Who was talking to you?

Who could that have been?

[ManiacJoe]

22. KP is illegal

not becuase it is morally wrong (or whatever phrase you want to use here). It is illegal because the production of it harms the child. At least, that is the theory used when crafting the laws against it.

[sharesunited]

25. Guns and ammo harm children all the time. Kills and permanently disables them.

[DrCory]

69. So Do Lots of Other Things...

Such as swimming pools and motor vehicles. Care to apply the same standard?

[ManiacJoe]

84. That is why it is illegal to shoot them.

[iverglas]

33. yeah?

How does the private possession of the images in question by someone who acquires them when, say, the child is an adult harm the child?

If it doesn't, why is that possession illegal?

Does it really harm a child to have photographs taken of it without clothes?

Are you wanting to explain that to the thousands of doting parents who have done just that over the last decades?

[ManiacJoe]

75. yeah.

You are asking me to explain the "logic" of legislators, but I will give it a try. My guess, since my crystal ball is in the shop, is that possession is illegal because it encourages the production. Feel free to offer your guesses.

You seem to be confusing photographs of nude children with porn. While there is some overlap, pictures that most parents take does not qualify as porn.

[X_Digger]

28. You're going to break the neck of that hobby horse..

.. if you keep trotting it out so much.

[sharesunited]

43. I think you don't like seeing it mainly because it is iron clad.

No reason the 2A can't be limited in the exact same way on the basis of the exact same rationale.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

81. I'll bite... yes.

With "Zero Tolerence" laws, the real bad news is in the details.

Take "sexting" for example. I'll assume you know what it is. A minor sexts some pics to some guy's blackberry - the wrong number. Somehow, the guy gets caught with this underage porn he had no idea about and now faces VERY strict sentencing. Score one for Z.T.! :sarcasm:

What about little kids in the bathtub. Kids are cute as hell - many parents scrapbook such pictures. No childhood memorobelia is complete w/out a bubble bearded toddler in the tub. Or zero tolerence knife rules in schools. Sounds great... kids shouldn't have knives in school. But what about that one or more odd story we hear every year about some kid getting suspended/expelled for a plastic knife or butter knife in thier lunchbox?

Zero Tolerence is simply a politically correct way to pass the buck and get a promotion at the same time... "Zero Sense" is more accurate. There are VERY few situations in which zero tolerence laws should be used.

[JonQ]

83. Interesting analogy

as they are starting to rethink that notion. Mainly because by the strictest interpretation any 15 year old who took a naked picture of herself (usually they are girls) and sent it to a friend was guilty of possessing child porn, as was the person receiving it (even if they were the same age or younger). Which is of course not the intention of the law and isn't really protecting anyone.

Also many famous paintings and sculptures display cherubs, in other words, naked kids. I suppose the Louvre is the biggest displayer of child pornography in the world. Burn it down and arrest everyone who enters!

So yeah, a little bit of common sense would be a good thing.

[proteus_lives]

35. We all know you stand for the restriction and the destruction of the rights of other people.

:puke:

[sharesunited]

39. I think you are mistaken in your belief of what your rights are or should be in regard to killing.

[proteus_lives]

46. Killing?

There is the emotional buzzword with no sense behind it. The 2nd Amendment and gun-ownership are not about killing.

Are you really that ignorant?

[sharesunited]

52. Of course it's about killing. That's why so many are dying for its sake.

How do you dress it up in your own mind to be about anything else?

[proteus_lives]

54. I don't dress it up.

That's your job.

It's about self-defense and a citizen's duty to himself, his home and his country. It's about being independent and not depending on resources that might not be accessible to you. It's about freedom. If you can't see that, it's your loss.

You might want read some of the law and theory about the 2nd Amendment. Or continue to wrap yourself in your fear and ignorance. It's your choice. (You know, choice. That thing you refuse to give other people.)

[sharesunited]

57. Sudden unjust death at the hands of someone faster or sneakier. That's your freedom.

And you're correct about this being a choice I don't believe we are in any way entitled to as a Constitutional "protection." It is the seed of our own destruction as a society.

[proteus_lives]

60. More bombastic statements.

This country has survived a civil war, slavery, states vs federal issues, the quest (continuing) for civil rights, vietnam, two world wars and many recessions and depressions. Add that too the fact that the 2nd Amendment has existed since our nation's birth and I have trouble believing that guns will lead to our destruction. Skateboarders are a bigger threat. Oh and guns have existed for over 300 years before our nation. When is this "destruction of our society" supposed to begin???

"I don't believe we are in any way entitled to as a Constitutional "protection."

You have yet to provide a reason for that belief. Most Americans (and Democrats and liberals) disagree with you, thankfully.

[sharesunited]

62. Your blindness can only be willful. You don't see the acceleration?

32 killed and how many wounded in the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. Shot by one man with a grievance.

4 killed and nine wounded just last week in the LA Fitness gym massacre. Shot by one man with a grievance.

Mass shootings are becoming so commonplace, the mind cannot retain them all. Another comes along like a train car.

The ability to administer unjust death as an outlet of redress or self expression-- and to do so quickly, conveniently, and efficiently-- is the reason for my belief that there is nothing worth protecting about this so-called protection.

A subjective fear of the boogie man will just not be enough to sustain it at some tipping point eventually to come. Many more must die first, of course. Such A Tragedy.

[proteus_lives]

66. It's cultural.

These events will always be with us. People act out for different reasons. In the past there were wars between different groups in America but that time is gone. The KKK used to hold the South in a reign of terror but that is no more. (Also they used gun control to keep African Americans from defending themselves.)

Those examples were of mentally ill people and I believe they were fault of a lack attention to these people. Once again you're blaming guns for the faults of another cultural institution. Both those men gave off warning signs and they should have been helped.

"The ability to administer unjust death as an outlet of redress or self expression-- and to do so quickly, conveniently, and efficiently-- is the reason for my belief that there is nothing worth protecting about this so-called protection."

Do you ever read the self-defense stories that get post here so often? Should those people who used weapons in self-defense allowed themselves to be robbed/raped/killed?

By your logic the right to free speech isn't worth defending because of Fox News. It doesn't make sense.

[fedupinhouston]

74. The mistaken one is you

I know i have no right to kill another person. Thats pretty simple.

However, I absolutely have the right to MY life. How i choose to live that life, and how i choose to defend it, are really none of your concern.

You dont like guns. We got that. You're welcome to not own one, and nobody is telling you otherwise. HOWEVER - my rights are not subject to what you like or dont like, what makes you feel uncomfortable, or your irrational fears.

You can accept that and be happy - or ignore it and be frustrated. Its really up to you.

[iverglas]

80. just exactly the way anyone who defends outlawing of child pornography does

You people are too easy.

How 'bout advertising snake oil to cure cancer? Wanna repeal that ban?

[SteveM]

71. Zero tolerance means a machine can't work...

But society is not a machine. Why do prohibitionists have such a passion for trumpeting zero tolerance in a society when they know it won't work? I can only speculate that you and others have no real interest in seeing that the policy works (vis a vis crime, violence, murder rates, etc.), but only in the deep pleasurable feeling you receive in proclaiming:

My morals are more moral than your morals -- and I can put you in jail.

[Katya Mullethov]

94. Piety expressed in public sacrifice

Once it was virgins , fatted calves ,and wine . Other peoples money is the current rage .

[rd_kent]

78. Any other parts of the Constitution you have zero tolerance for?

[Katya Mullethov]

23. As one anchor so eloquently put it

"You took a GODDAMM GUN !?" .

This kind of stuff only steadies the collective resolve . The recent "Socialist has become a teabagger codeword for Nigger " story is an excellent example of pure marketing genius .

[X_Digger]

26. Idiot? Absolutely.. Legal? Yup..

Paultard-flat-tax-to-no-tax moran? 100%. I have no doubt that this guy was just being a provocateur, hoping for a confrontation. Proper response? "That's nice, junior. Bully for you... now about that tax bullshit-"

[iverglas]

31. "the only thing that matters is that no one got hurt"

Nope.

It is of very great importance that a gun militant decided to engage in a display of force that was seen by your entire country.

It is of very great importance that the gun militant community appears to have rallied around him, and gone to great lengths to defend him because he had a "right" to do what he did and his rights were violated.

This is what they live for. Just as other elements of the racist, misogynist right wing live for the moments when they can screech that their right of free speech is being violated when a university community bans their hateful anti-sexual minority or anti-religious minority or anti-ethnic minority speech.

These are the PROVOCATEURS of the movement. They engage in their antisocial behaviours IN ORDER to provoke the response that any normal, decent, rational person has to their behaviours.

At a very slightly less extreme level, they are the footsoldiers, the occupying forces, the ones taking over the public spaces of a society. If they can provoke along the way -- if they can get normal, decent, rational people to call police when a pack of them squat in a restaurant or park, or when they individually show up at kids' soccer games, with their guns on prominent display on their bodies -- they are happy. They are thrilled. And they have proved their power, their control of the public space. That was why they were doing it, and when normal, decent, rational people discovered they were powerless to object, that was a bonus.



and to those who think this event will bring change to the culture of firearm ownership of this country, i suggest you dont hold your breath...because almost only counts in horse shoes and with hand grenades

Don't need much more evidence, do we?

It's them against anybody who doesn't agree. And they've got the guns, and you'd better get used to it. Because they're gonna win.

Win what? Well, it ain't got much to do with guns.

[Katya Mullethov]

42. Attention provocateurs ............. todays bluelight special

Is free target stands on aisle one .
http://sacramento.craigslist.org/search/jjj?query=obama&catAbbreviation=jjj

[iverglas]

56. that was lovely

Now here's one for you.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+site:www.democraticunderground.com+iverglas+universal+healthcare

[Name removed]

70. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

92. huh

All gone!

I guess filthy misogny isn't welcome here after all.

[Katya Mullethov]

93. I'm not filthy

And I have no idea where he got the idea I didnt like you . Perish the thought .

I was merely commenting on your debating style . From a footsoldiers point of view .

[rl6214]

98. WOW you really love yourself don't you?

Not even close.

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. Maybe lefties should quit bringing biodegradable sporks to gunfights

News flash: Having a progressive outlook doesn't mean your strength is as the strength of ten because your heart is pure.

And non-violent civil disobedience doesn't work against people who won't scruple to kill you if you act too uppity.

Sid Hatfield, Mother Jones, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Robert F. Williams, and the miners of Harlan County, Kentucky are a few examples of progressives and working class Americans who understood this.

Learn from them.

We should never incite or initiate violence, but if violence is used against us we have the right to defend ourselves
in a proportionate manner.

[iverglas]

82. what the fuck are you yammering about?

Sid Hatfield, Mother Jones, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Robert F. Williams, and the miners of Harlan County, Kentucky

If I were as dimwitted/deceitful as the general population here, I'd say something like:

So you're saying that a right-wing moron is the same as Sid Hatfield, Mother Jones, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Robert F. Williams, and the miners of Harlan County, Kentucky.

Oh. And I'd try to remember to put a question mark at the end of my dimwitted/deceitful claim.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Simple. The wingers don't give a shit about your strongly worded posts denouncing them.

You want the moral high ground. They want the public spaces (and attention in the various media), and if they can do it by scaring the shit out of the timid, the fearful, and all those nice liberals who are afraid of icky guns, they will.

We need tougher sorts of people to show up, legally armed AND unarmed, at these kind of things.

People like the ones I mentioned. The ones some members of MY OWN PARTY would prefer not be mentioned.

I am proposing a change of mindset vs. pointless and obfuscatory handwringing

We (meaning DUers, Democrats, democrats, lefties, progressives, or what have you) should do what, exactly?

1. Nothing? Which reinforces the meme of "Liberals will fold like Superman on laundry day if pushed."

And, yes, writing strongly worded posts at DU denouncing the type of behavior shown merely demonstrates:

"iverglas Disapproves Of This Sort Of Thing, And When You Do It Again She Will Post Yet Another Diatribe Saying So."

accomplishing...very little, if anything.


2. Arrest them? (the ones following the letter of the law, that is. The lawbreakers should be jugged forthwith)
IOW, do exactly what they want and make them martyrs for their own cause.

3. Something else?

I say it's time to start legally packing ourselves, because *they* certainly won't stop doing so.

[iverglas]

90. good grief!

The wingers don't give a shit about your strongly worded posts denouncing them.

I thought for a minute I was seeing some truth in posting!


You want the moral high ground. They want the public spaces (and attention in the various media), and if they can do it by scaring the shit out of the timid, the fearful, and all those nice liberals who are afraid of icky guns, they will.

Now you tell me what I want? Imagine what words spring to my lips.

I want the public spaces of my society. And I -- we -- HAVE THEM.

I'm talking about what the racist misogynist gun-militant right wing wants in YOUR society. Because the whole 27 of them up here aren't actually agitating to be entitled to promenade around with their pistols in public. Okay, there are probably a few dozen more who would if they could. But if they said it out loud, they'd be laughed at.


We need tougher sorts of people to show up, legally armed AND unarmed, at these kind of things.

Well, we know that your "we" doesn't include me, and wouldn't no matter where I was born. Your "we" also doesn't include any thinking human being I can think of. Redd Foxx as Tonto really is the only thing that springs to my mind here.


We (meaning DUers, Democrats, democrats, lefties, progressives, or what have you) should do what, exactly?

I'm sorry, there's a premise in that question I'm having a very hard time with, so I don't think it will be possible for me to answer that question as framed.

What decent human beings of all stripes should be doing is standing up and calling the thugs what they are. Thugs. The thugs' constitutional rights have precisely fuck all to do with anything. Thugs have constitutional rights. They are still thugs. And that is the salient point.

[rl6214]

99. Name calling, foul language

You really are a lady, aren't you.

Oh wait, I forgot, you're a lawyer.

You've called yourself a "social democrat" (do they have democrats and republicans in canada, I thought you were all just canadians) yet you treat fellow democrats on this board like trash, bec ause they don't agree with your canadian philosophy of gun control. Is this how you treat everyone that dosen't agree with you?

[gorfle]

88. You got that right.

It's them against anybody who doesn't agree. And they've got the guns, and you'd better get used to it. Because they're gonna win.

Amen.

[iverglas]

91. how interesting that you agree with me

You solemnly agree with me:

Win what? Well, it ain't got much to do with guns.

Nice to see some truth in posting.