Chris Matthews Unloads On Protester Who Carried Gun To Obama Event

[NYDem Observer]

Run time: 08:04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4   Posted on YouTube: August 11, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 11, 2009 By DU Member: NYDem Observer Views on DU: 12628

 
Morans like this is what we're up against people.

[valerief]

1. That asshat with the gun was such a sleazeball. nt

[LuckyTheDog]

146. Looks a lot like Lee Harvey Oswald

Don't you think?

[baldguy]

2. "Why did you bring a gun to a public event?"

Why does anyone want to carry a gun anywhere? Because he's a psychologically insecure idiot.

[paulsby]

14. because it's a civil right

protected by the 2nd amendment. the issue is not "why carry?"

[baldguy]

33. If America ever becomes sane & gets rid of the GOP pack on the USSC

the 2nd Amendment will finally be interpreted correctly as a collective right meant to provide a means for national defense.

The only reason for an individual not involved in event security or police activities to carry a weapon to such a public event about healthcare to to prove to everyone that he's an asshole.

[paulsby]

43. that's hilarious

you do realize that even ginsburg recognized it as an INDIVIDUAL right.

so does sotomayor, i am sure.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

80. too bad the guy was a frigging moron about it

making anyone who owns guns want to be sure to distance themselves from this
guy with a single digit IQ

[paulsby]

98. there are people who use bad judgment

he imo is one of them. is he exercising his rights? absolutely . do i defend his RIGHT do so? absolutely . do i think it was a GOOD choice to wear a crappy LEG holster in a crowd? no.

[baldguy]

110. Right- Let's let EVERYONE with poor judgement & tin-foily world views carry lethal weapons

around the President. That will turn out well.

:eyes:

[paulsby]

191. we "let" people do all things that are not proscribed by law

thats how it works in a society governed by rule of law. do you want to live in a country ruled by law, or by man? i know my answer.

[jonestonesusa]

151. To be fair, there are still differences of opinion on that issue.

It took the court many years before they rendered the recent decision, and not everyone agreed, though you are right about the current state of the law regarding firearms and the second Amendment.

That position will continue to evolve.

[Enthusiast]

104. Obama agreed it is an individual right.

But, given the history of political assassination by RW zealots in this country lines must be drawn.

[PavePusher]

190. I am curious what line you wish to draw and where.

This man was not even close to shooting distance from the President, was openly exercising his Civil Rights (pretty sneaky of a would be assasin, eh? <sarcasm, sorry>), and was not being physically or verbally threatening in any way. You might disagree with his message, but he was well within his rights to say it.

[Enthusiast]

233. Nope

All of the sudden, now that we have a black president, a president that has received more death threats than any president since Lincoln, we are going to test the very limits of common sense? The guy got away with openly carrying a firearm. This would never have been allowed at any time in the past. Why now do we have to test these limits? I consider this complete bullshit. Where was this 'patriot' during the Bush Administration?

[PavePusher]

234. Ah, that old chestnut.

"It wasn't/wouldn't have been allowed under Bush, so we can't tolerate it under Obama."

1. We are supposed to be better and less shallow than the previous administration. In order to seize the moral high ground, you actually have to... umm.. seize the moral high ground.

2. Saying "They weren't being fair, so I'm not going to be fair" wasn't valid in Kindergarten, and it's surely not valid as an adult.

[Enthusiast]

235. Ridiculous argument

What if 60 show up the next time with hand guns? Where do you draw the line? There are simply some places that we should not allow firearms. I am not against gun ownership or carrying but we do have to exercise a bit of judgment.

[PavePusher]

239. The Constitution disagrees with you.

As long as they are not threatening anyone (which, I note, a number of people HERE have done in this topic), the exercise of their Civil Rights MAY NOT BE INFRINGED.

Imagine if 60 people showed up somewhere to protest or support something! The horror! Oh, wait...


You don't have to like it. That's the point of freedom.

[Enthusiast]

240. Your's is an extreme

interpretation of the constitution. There is just no way a modern society can function with everyone carrying firearms everywhere they go. And why would anyone want to live in such a society, anyway? This is a pointless argument. You are either reasonable or you belong with the deathers and birthers.

And I have been a life long hunter. Christ, I have two buck mounts over the couch in my living room and another in the bedroom. My perspective is reasonable.

[Madball]

142. So were just assuming

the government will look out for our best interests going forward and we will never need to stop the taxation?

[baldguy]

148. Pray tell, what does one issue have to do with the other?

[AlbertCat]

35. because it's a civil right

That's beside the point. The question is not what gives you the right to carry a gun to a public event, but WHY did you carry a gun to a public event.

Did you plan to use it?
Did you want it to be seen. (like a threat)
Do you always carry a gun, y;know, to like children's birthday parties and church? (like a paranoid idiot)
Did you feel threatened?

Y'know WHY did you carry a gun?


Get the chip off your shoulder and answer the question.

[paulsby]

44. actually no. it is exactly NOt the issue

NOBODY needs justify their exercise of a civil right (the right to remain silent, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to confront witnesses against him, the right to exercise their religion (or lack thereof), or their RKB arms) by explaining why they wanted to exercise it. simply put, it's a non-issue.

personally, i would not have chosen to carry a gun in that manner, and at that location. that's my choice. he exercised a different choice, CONSISTENT with the law. he has no burden to justify his decision, any more than a guy who chooses not to testify on his behalf, or a guy who chooses to worship his god, needs to explain why he WANTs to do it. grok it?

[geckosfeet]

100. It's my right to call everyone I disagree with a flaming fucking asshole.

Why don't I?

This guy is an ignorant hick. Open carry to public events is NOT the way to achieve positive political discourse.

[northernlights]

it certainly is

Run time: 08:04 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4   Posted on YouTube: August 11, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: August 12, 2009 By DU Member: northernlights Views on DU: 12628

 
because you have a right to be armed doesn't mean a gun is a smart or legitimate thing to bring to a political rally. It is a threat, especially in combination with his shirt.

Don't forget, many of us -- the majority of us -- had a great democrat president, his candidate brother and a major civil rights leader assassinated within our lifetimes.

If it had been a Bush rally, the guy would have been thrown in jail.

Maybe instead of protesting universal healthcare, he should be celebrating the fact that he was allowed to exercise his right to bear arms (um, doesn't it say in a militia?) in a place where carrying wasn't the right thing to do.

[Madball]

136. ???

Did anyone here ever think how many people actually had guns but were not visible? People carry concealed all the time with out anyone knowing this guy followed the letter of the law. How is he different than someone carrying concealed, is it just cause you can't see it?

[HALO141]

194. orly?

"because you have a right to be armed doesn't mean a gun is a smart or legitimate thing to bring to a political rally."

Smart? No, probably not smart. Legitimate? we may differ on that one. But, as you concede, it was his right to do so and the whole point of having rights in the first place is that some people may disagree with you. Freedom means nothing if you're not free to be wrong in others' estimation.

"Don't forget, many of us -- the majority of us -- had a great democrat president, his candidate brother and a major civil rights leader assassinated within our lifetimes."

Assassinations
Abraham Lincoln ( R )
James A. Garfield ( R )
William McKinley ( R )
John F. Kennedy (D)

Attempted assassinations
Andrew Jackson (D-R) and ( D )
Theodore Roosevelt ( R )
Franklin D. Roosevelt ( D )
Harry S. Truman ( D )
John F. Kennedy ( D )
Richard Nixon ( R )
Gerald Ford ( R )
Jimmy Carter ( D )
Ronald Reagan ( R )
George H.W. Bush ( R )
Bill Clinton ( D )
George W. Bush ( R )

Presidential deaths rumored to be assassinations
Zachary Taylor ( W )
Warren G. Harding ( R )

To be fair, both parties have had their share of assassinations and attempted assassinations. Three R's to one D, in fact. So lets not get too awfully drenched in our self pity. Clearly there's enough murderous insanity to serve everyone on both sides of the political spectrum.


"If it had been a Bush rally, the guy would have been thrown in jail."

Doubtful. Though he would probably have been detained. Now Cheney, on the other hand...

"Maybe instead of protesting universal healthcare, he should be celebrating the fact that he was allowed to exercise his right to bear arms (um, doesn't it say in a militia?) in a place where carrying wasn't the right thing to do."

I think he was doing both, actually.

And no, it DOESN'T say that.

[bigbrother05]

185. Some said Gates was a fool for exercising his rights in his home

Should have known better than to piss off a cop regardless of the circumstances.

How is this anything other than an overt, intentional attempt to inflame and incite under the guise of exercising his rights? This guy was hoping to make the news and maybe even be seen as a 2nd Amendment martyr by getting arrested.

Simple case of wingnut moran trumpeting the Constitution only when he thinks it protects him and his views.

[SolidGold]

150. could have hero syndrome

ready to shoot some robbers and thugs! Solve it with a bullet!

[HALO141]

195. Or, perhaps...

he carries every day because that's the lifestyle he's chosen and a thigh rig is more comfortable and convenient than the alternative.

[RainDog]

3. what a total idiot.

I mean, total, complete idiot.

[kevinbgoode]

4. Tweety needed to ask him how often he has taken a loaded

gun to other public events.

[PDJane]

5. I simply have a very, very, hard time with this........

The man's a whole one-note band. He didn't seem to object when the Bush Bunch were taking away liberties right and left, as long as he got to keep his gun.

I have a very unhappy ulcer, and I think it may be time to build that border wall after all. You know, the one between Canada and the US.

[shellgame26]

95. it's called small-penis syndrome

[Bettie]

124. And at a BUSH event he would not have been able to keep the gun!

Hell, you couldn't even wear the wrong tee shirt at a Bush event!

I'm actually surprised he didn't take a shot at the president.

[HALO141]

197. Now, now...

"He didn't seem to object when the Bush Bunch were taking away liberties right and left, as long as he got to keep his gun. "

We don't really know that now do we? It's very possible that he objected to many of Bush's policies. I know quite a few conservatives who had serious problems with the Patriot Act, for instance.

[kestrel91316]

6. What a buffoon. Living proof that half the population has an IQ LESS than 100.

[liberalmuse]

7. Sheesh, he has that inbred look about him.

I know that's mean, but that horrible inbred notion of mine would have been dispelled and forgotten had he something even close to intelligent to say.

[ingac70]

77. Brother and sister crossed up somewhere...

in that family tree.

[LostInAnomie]

8. I love when fucking insecure nuts like this act like they don't get what the problem is.

Like they are totally ignorant from what is implied when you are carrying a loaded gun into a public forum.

[HALO141]

198. Guns are carried in

"public forums" every day. Don't kid yourself.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. The deer in the headlights look

happened a lot, especially when Tweety was asking him to think.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

17. That wasn't thinking.

That was the last shreds of his human soul, trying to escape through his eyeballs.

[AlbertCat]

38. The deer in the headlights look

He was trying to remember his memorized talking points.

"Our rights are being taken away" (which ones, Deary? Explain.)

"The 2nd amendment....."

"I wanted to be heard....in a polite society" (In a polite society you don't need a loaded weapon to be heard.)


These things are HARD to remember


The fool even looks like a sheep.

[Seldona]

10. Is there no federal law about having a gun at a Presidential event?

What about the fact he was carrying right across the street from a school, with a very disturbing sign, given the context? Do they let nutcases carry firearms by schools in NH?

The most disconcerting thing isn't that some idiot brought a gun to a Presidential event imo. It is that he was able to get away with it. With their recent history of disorderly conduct at these meetings, and violence as well, he should have been removed immediately. At the very least.

I hope the IRS is reevaluating this churches tax exempt status as well. Seems like they held a armed political protest to me. Nor is this the first armed protest held in a church. Some other lunatic pastor asked his congregation to show up for services armed and in camouflage.

To say that this is a disturbing trend is the understatement of the year.

[lapfog_1]

59. Whether or not he has a "right"

he is very dumb to do it to THIS event. The Secret Service probably takes a dim view of such shenanigans. If he scratches his butt the wrong way, he might find a very precise hole in the middle of his forehead. Given the history of Presidents and assassination attempts, I wouldn't fault the Secret Service one little bit.

[Seldona]

74. Agreed.

But he didn't get arrested, did he? I saw he was on with Tweety earlier. He wasn't wearing an orange jumpsuit like I expected either.

Then I heard later there was a guy arrested IN the school with a gun. Not sure if they are the same guys. Then the bomb scare? This is just from one day, at one meeting. I would suggest that when it comes to the safety of the President, it isn't out of bounds to ban GUNS from an event. Hell, Bush required a loyalty oath.

It has already spun out control, but if left unchecked it can get exponentially worse.

[lapfog_1]

86. In Arizona, guns in schools (by anyone other than a police officer)

is illegal. Almost everywhere else they are legal (even bars). Private establishments can ask that you check your gun at the entrance (like most banks do) but they have to post a sign.

If this guy had gone to a school (assuming the laws are nearly the same as Arizona), he would have been arrested.

I think it should be a FEDERAL LAW that no one other than the Secret Service and anyone they ok (like local police, highway patrol, the military) should be allowed to open or concealed carry within, say, 1000 yards of the President.

[PSzymeczek]

90. The gun nuts

are trying to change that, Lapfog.
And I think the Lege was dead wrong to allow concealed carry in bars.

[lapfog_1]

94. They already allow open and conceal carry at colleges and

universities. The bar thing will last for a while, but almost all law enforcement is against it (they do NOT want to called to break up bar fights now).

We used to have sane people in this world. I grew up in a gun owning and hunting family. But my dad would NEVER have strapped on a .45 to run down to the local Kiwanis meeting. The guns only came out of the gun closet (that was locked) when we were going to go shoot something (either birds or skeet). My sister was on the university target shooting team. But nobody was sitting around talking about "second amendment rights" and nobody thought it was OK to walk around armed to the teeth. I want THAT country back. Before grownups acted like three year olds at town hall meetings.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

81. exactly. he has a right, just no fracking brain. and it should be against the law to bring a gun

to that sort of event. Secret Service has enough to do.

[Enthusiast]

105. He probably had crosshairs

on his head for the entire event, lol.

[Fredfon]

128. LOL

I'm sure you're right.

[Recursion]

130. Hmm... I'm sure they prefer open carry to concealed

Which way of carrying would you prefer if you were a secret service agent?

[joeglow3]

152. Church's have EVERY right to support or oppose ISSUES.

Just not candidates or parties.

[Seldona]

228. So you are okay with armed politcal rallies at churches?

That a church would let someone carry a gun that close to school really says it all.

[joeglow3]

238. All I spoke of was legality

As I said in another post regarding the asshat with the gun:

"If we want to respect what made this country great, we have to accept and, yes, even defend people's rights to do things we may find reprehensible. I would never be a friend of this guy. If I saw him, I would probably exercise my right to free speech with him. I would whole-heartedly support a change to the 2nd amendment (not abolishment, as I do support a slimmed down version of what we have now). But, until that day comes, I will fight for the rights of all citizens, even if I oppose them (isn't this, after all, what we are doing with the healthcare issue right now?)."

[The Wizard]

11. He carries a gun

because his man parts are insufficient.

[paulsby]

16. ah, the penis canard

one of the favorite illogical arguments used by anti-civil rights folks.

[billh58]

24. John Hinckley?

You are confusing intelligence with being "anti-civil rights." The abuse of ANY civil right, is controlled by codified law and common sense. And, carrying a loaded weapon in public is definitely compensating for a feeling of inadequacy and low self-esteem -- regardless of the cause for the feeling.

[paulsby]

26. no, it's not

carrying a loaded weapon in public is a right the founders deemed important enough to recognize in our 2nd amendment, and right my state constitution recognizes quite explicitly. if you have evidence of an ABUSE of a civil right, then go for it. openly carrying in a public place is perfectly lawful in many jurisdictions, and is no more an ABUSE of the 2nd, than printing a pamphlet that you disagree with is an abuse of the 1st.

[billh58]

28. Whose Rights?

What about the rights of those of us who do not want to be threatened by those of you who are already scared enough to feel the need to "protect" yourselves from non-existent threats. If you want to carry a firearm into the woods to hunt -- fine. If you want to sleep with a pistol under your pillow -- fine. In fact, very few localities in the US allow "open carry" without a special permit, and rightfully so.

I am a combat vet, and I know for a fact that guns are only designed for one thing: to kill. And, many in this country disagree with the for-profit NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. You, and other wild-west, public-carry advocates need to read the ENTIRE content of the 2nd Amendment, especially the part about a "well-regulated" militia.

No one wants to take away your precious gun, we just don't want to be around you when you're armed and feeling "adequate." Since there are more of we rational, non-armed, Americans than there are of you and your armed and paranoid ilk, we are the majority. How's that for pamphlet material...;-)

[PavePusher]

32. Wow.

The projection in your post is so deep...

And so wrong.

[billh58]

37. I understand

Believe me, I totally understand your passion and your belief that it is your "right" to carry a loaded weapon, and I respect that. If you do not believe that it is my "right" to know where you are at all times, so that my family and I can stay the hell away from you, then we have a basic disagreement on individual rights under the Constitution of the United States of America.

A basic principle of ANY "right" is choice. Thank goodness that there are millions more Americans who choose to not carry firearms, than those few who want to exercise a right to threaten others in order to feel more secure in our free society. I expect fanantics to carry weapons in many parts of the Third World, but have never seen the need in most industrialized nations.

I maintain that the idiot who was trying to make a point by carrying a sidearm to a Presidential appearance abused his "rights," and showed piss-poor judgement.

[Bluerthanblue]

224. you are a wise, patient man-

And i heartily agree with you.

:hi:

[PavePusher]

225. O.K., let us stipulate...

that you have a "right" to "feel" any way you want.

But you may not infringe my rights to get to that feeling.

Please cite the "right to feel safe" or where you may limit my rights for your "feeling" of safety, in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Or anywhere in case law.

My guns have never hurt anyone, and, if criminals do not try to victimize me, I will do my utmost to ensure they never will. Why should I have to forfeit rights because someone else (criminals, not you) is an asshole? I do not forfeit my First Amendment because some rectal-chapeau writes a screed that urges people to lynch those with a darker skin color. I do not forfeit my Fourth Amendment rights to make it easier to find murderers and inssurectionists. On the contrary, by enforcing my Rights, I make this a better, stronger nation to live in.

In my view, you can't get more Progressive than that.

[twitomy]

229. Kind of reminds me of the Larry Flynt case

Basically he was pushing his first amendments right to the limit, claiming by doing so he was
protecting that right for everyone else. I think this 2nd amendment guy was doing the same thing.
"Use it or Lose It" I guess

[billh58]

232. Awww

I thought that I was through with this thread, but I just had to answer this one. I never once advocated, implied, nor suggested curtailing your precious "right" to carry a weapon where it is legal, or to be obnoxious about it while doing so. Feel free.

What I DID say, is that I, and many millions of Americans, do not want to be in the same vicinity with anyone who is not in uniform and openly carrying a loaded weapon. That is MY right, and if I am the one who needs to vacate the venue to accomplish that goal, I will. Fair enough?

The 2nd Amendment does not mandate carrying a weapon, nor does it mandate that I, or any other free citizen, am obligated to be forced to be near some dude with a gun regardless of his protestations of good will, sanity, and benevolence.

It has been an interesting discussion, and I have learned a few things about those who fear for their personal, and our country's, safety. I don't share those concerns, but I understand where you are coming from a little better. If you knew a little more about my experiences after returning from two voluntary tours in Vietnam, you might understand my views a little better. You and I both know that neither of us will ever "win" this discussion, so let's just agree to disagree. Deal?

Aloha from Maui...;-)

[twitomy]

242. Deal...

and I am grateful this discussion didnt degenerate.

BTW, Thanks for your service .I have always been military/history buff, but I thank
the Lord I never had to experience it first hand; reading about it is disturbing enough.

[NoSheep]

60. Eloquent, elegant and absolutely right on.

[Patiod]

120. Well said (nt)

[twitomy]

155. "Well regulated" does not mean

it is run by the govt. That would defeat the purpose of the amendment. The framers wanted the population armed against a tyrannical govt. Remember we had just thrown off the King. So a govt controlled militia would be pointless.

If you feel threatned by someones exercise of their rights, I think the inadequacy or hoplaphobia, if thats the case, is your issue, not the gun carriers. I have never fealt threatened by a holstered weapon.

[billh58]

158. What?

Then pray tell, just what does "well regulated" mean? By whom? The document that established the 2nd Amendment was written and authorized by the "government." If the Framers had meant to establish private militias (like the KKK or the Aryan Brotherhood?) it stands to reason they would have said so. Are you really telling me that you and your "well regulated" private militia would stand a chance in Hell against the US Army, or can conceive of a situation where that scenario would even be within the realm of reality?

Your argument that the Framers of our newly established government considered themselves just as dangerous to the People as the English Monarchy is absurd. As for your attempt to rationalize the need to carry a gun in public, your words speak for themselves. It is the gun carrier who suffers from fear and feelings of inadequacy, and NOT the millions of rational Americans who do not carry in public -- including otherwise sane gun owners. If someone carries a gun in public just to prove a point by displying an obvious threat to others, what has been gained? Guns serve only one purpose, and that is to kill.

All societal civil rights come with conditions: choice, reason, and responsibility.

[twitomy]

178. "Well Regulated" did not mean Government regulated in this case.

There are many things in the world that are "regulated" that have no govt connections. You can easily google the phrase and educate yourself. "Well-regulated" means regulated by the people.

"If the Framers had meant to establish private militias (like the KKK or the Aryan Brotherhood?) it stands to reason they would have said so."

They didnt desire to establish militias. But they wanted to secure (not create) the right of the people to create their own militas. A militia officially sanctioned by the govt would be pointless.

"Are you really telling me that you and your "well regulated" private militia would stand a chance in Hell against the US Army"

In this day and age, a militia fighting a conventional battle would certainly lose. An armed
resistance would have to be guerilla style. The militia would have to go underground.

"It is the gun carrier who suffers from fear and feelings of inadequacy, and NOT the millions of rational Americans who do not carry in public"

And you know this how? Have you done a psychological profile on them?

"Your argument that the Framers of our newly established government considered themselves just as dangerous to the People as the English Monarchy is absurd."

I dont think they considered themselves dangerous, but they were smart enough to know that future
governments could be, all they had to look at was their former King.

"If someone carries a gun in public just to prove a point by displying an obvious threat to others"

Again, I dont think a holstered weapon is a threat. I never got scared, never peed my pants and went into a fetal position. Cops wear holstered weapons. I dont find them threatening. Now if the guy had it in his hand and worse a finger on the trigger, I would be concerned. And if someone did that for no good reason then I think that would be grounds for arrest.

"Guns serve only one purpose, and that is to kill,"

You make it sound like that is something evil. But it depends on the reason and motivation. Sometimes killing the groundhog tearing up the pole shed, the person attacking you or your familiy, or in the minds of the Framers the next depsot, is justified. I Think they serve other purposes as well. Great for target shooting.

My wife was always "scared" of guns. Irrational. I bought a 9mm handgun for our protection. I took her out back and had her shoot off some rounds..She's not scared of it anymore, and knows how to use it. She's a trooper!

[billh58]

181. All NRA Talking Points

You passionate defense of your God-given right to openly carry a weapon in populated areas of a civilized society is noted, and you are certainly within your rights to claim that right. I, on the other hand, have the right to question your motives to threaten other citizens who have done you no harm.

I am a combat vet, and have no fear of weapons, but I have seen them do what they were designed to do up close and personal. I am not afraid of guns, but I am afraid of idiots who are allowed (with minimum training or supervision) to carry a gun in public. ANYONE (including the police) carrying a weapon in public is saying: "If you fuck with me, I will kill you." That unsaid statement tends to bring out the Billy The Kid sydrome in other idiots, and we're right back to the days of Wild West justice. Our society has struggled for decades to get away from that mentality.

The bottom line, however, is that there is a certain minority breed of American who equates "the right to bear arms" with apple pie, motherhood, and the flag. Fortunately, MOST Americans are intelligent enough to choose to exercise that "right" with restraint and common sense.

So please stop using my, and others', courage as an unfounded argument for our dislike of anyone who is not a qualified member of a well-regulated, and well-intentioned militia (Police, Military, etc.) while carrying a weapon in crowded public venues. It is NOT the weapon that is the danger -- it is the idiot carrying it.

And lastly, your statements to the effect that an armed populice is justified in advocating the violent overthrow of a goverment that you don't agree with, is both un-American and borderline treasonous. Our initial armed rebellion was against a monarchy, and not a Constitutional Democratic Government. Until that changes, you are the threat, and you definitely do NOT speak for me, or millions of other law-abiding American patriots.

[twitomy]

186. First off,

I do not and would not open carry. Too many irrational people out there who cant handle the sight of a weapon. So why are you saying. "your motives to threaten other citizens who have done you no harm."? I dont open carry, I dont want to threaten anybody, and I dont think those who do generally are trying to threaten anybody either. I take them at their word.

"It is NOT the weapon that is the danger -- it is the idiot carrying it."

There you go...assuming everyone who open carries is an "idiot" trying to threaten someone. If I
wore those judgemental glasses I would be scared too.

"an armed populice is justified in advocating the violent overthrow of a goverment that you don't agree with, is both un-American and borderline treasonous. "Until that changes, you are the threat, and you definitely do NOT speak for me, or millions of other law-abiding American patriots."
"

Blah Blah Blah. Nice way to twist things. Rebellion against a tyranical govt is justified. But I never said our current govt is tyrannical, (although it got close under Bush), Nor am I advocating it. Where the hell was I advocating it? I was only explaining the rational behind the right. Unclench thine ass-cheeks and stop jumping to conclusions about people for once. Fking amazing...

And dont think for a minute it couldnt happen. Afterall, the well-educated, democratic Germany elected Hitler. Evil hasnt gone away.

[billh58]

189. My, my...

You can have your gun, and I'm glad to hear that you don't open carry as a rule. Your interpretation of the Founders "rationale" is, once again, your opinion, and not based in fact. The stance that Americans "should" be armed in order to prevent a mythical "tryanical government" is indeed assinine, unrealistic, un-Constitutional, and un-American.

You and your kind illogically assume that if (and that's a huge fantasy "if") a Hitler-like politician should be elected (unlike Hitler, who was appointed by the Kaiser) to a position of power, that our citizen military commanders, or citizen-soldiers (you know, our relatives, neighbors, friends) would stand by and follow a dictator's orders to imprison or kill other Americans. Not likely, even in a fantasy scenario. We're Americans, and our State National Guard units ARE a well-regulated militia who are armed with more than popguns.

Finally, this was never meant to be a pissing match with you personally, but to point out the sheer stupidity of the idiot who carried an open weapon to a Presidential Town Hall meeting for God's sake. Openly carrying a weapon in ANY populated area is bad enough, but to a Presidential Town Hall?

Sigh...;-)

[twitomy]

214. Well I think he probably shouldnt have brought it..

"We're Americans"

So you think that fact alone means it could never happen? Your naive. If I remember, citizen soldiers had no problem rounding up Japanese-Americans on the orders of our "Democratic Republic". Look what we did to the American Indians; ever hear of the "Trail of Tears"?

I have read here more than once that our country is not run by the people and for the people but
for the Corporate Oligarchy.

If you read our founding fathers, you will read that they did want an armed populace to protect the liberty of the people, wether it is threatend from the govt or outsiders..Here are some quotes:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)"

And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed.,1939)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975))

"but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

*********************************************

So I think the 2nd amendment was meant to:
1)Keep the ulitmate power with the people
2)Personal Protection

and somewhere way down on the list:
100)Skeet shooting and duck hunting.

[billh58]

215. Thanks for the history lesson

and you're welcome to open carry your piece around with you where it's legal. At least that way the rest of us can see you coming, and avoid your paranoid ass.

Peace...;-)

[twitomy]

216. LOL! There is a bright side to everything! NT

[billh58]

217. LOL! To quote Caribou Barbie

You betcha!

[billh58]

168. Hoplaphobia?

And no, having served in the military I have no fear of weapons. I do, however, have a very real fear of idiots carrying weapons.

[twitomy]

179. Definition

Hoplophobia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hoplophobia (pronounced /ˌhɒplɵˈfoʊbiə/), from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is defined as the "fear of firearms"<1> or alternatively, an irrational fear of weapons in general, and describes a specific phobia.


You assume everyone who carries is an idiot. Dont be so judgemental and tolerate people who are not like you and perhaps you will have less to fear.

I generally dont fear people who carry. Its there thing..whatever, you know?.

[billh58]

182. I know the definition

and once again, I am NOT afraid of weaponry. ANYONE who openly carries a weapon in a crowded public venue (Town Hall meetings, bars, supermarkets, restaurants, hospitals, airposts... need I go on?) where professional security is present IS an idiot, and only wants to be confrontational.

And that is the scary part: confrontational = anger problem.

[twitomy]

184. If they are peaceful citizens..

and their carrying of weapons is meant be confrontational, then where are the confrontations?

Did this guy interviewed by Matthews cause a confrontation?

[billh58]

187. If it wasn't a

"confrontation," why was he on the news? Of course he was being confrontational, and the fact that no one confronted him doesn't change that.

Just to give your argument a little room, why was he openly carrying a weapon to a public event where government security was very evident? Just to prove a point? Because he feared someone, or something? Did he even think about how he would be perceived by others attending the same event? Or, honestly now, was he making an aggressive statement -- especially when you take into account the sign he carried?

Look, I am NOT attempting to take away your weapon, or your right to carry. I AM, however, attempting to educate you and other gun-toters about your need to take other people's perceptions, right to PEACEFULLY assemble, and sensibilities, into consideration. It would be fairly difficult for the average person to maintain a peaceful state-of-mind while standing next to a non-uniformed, unidentified, dude with a hogleg strapped to his belt -- especially when the first African-American POTUS is expected at the event, and the dude is carrying a sign calling for the "blood of partiots and tyrants" to water the tree of Liberty. I know, I know, the sign didn't say ALL of that, but anyone with a grade-school education knows (or should know) the origin and full text of the quote.

One last time: a "right" comes with an obligation to exercise it responsibly. You may be the best-trained firearms handler in the world, but without some sort of identifying criteria, I don't know that. I can "assume" that a cop or a soldier has a reason to be carrying, but some "average" dude carrying a protest sign AND a gun, goes immediately on my suspect list. In that respect, yes this particular "gun nut" IS an idiot.

[PavePusher]

192. The word you are looking for is 'trust'.

And you don't have it.

"You may be the best-trained firearms handler in the world, but without some sort of identifying criteria, I don't know that."

You place your life in the hands of strangers every day. You trust them not to hit you with their car, drop construction material on your head, push you in front of the commuter train, burn down your house, kidnap your family, crack your bank accounts, etc. You also take precautions in case someone does, even though you 'trust' most of them. What you seem to be saying over and over is that people not in uniform can't be trusted with guns. As a 19 year active duty Air Force member, I find that rather incompatible with your oath of service. (I'm only an aircraft mech, but yeah, I've been shot at, both as a civilian in a war zone and on A.D.)

As far as assuming that police are trustworthy, did you know that Concealed Permit holders have a crime rate approx. 1% that of police? I would guess that Open Carriers have a similar rate due to the fact that they ARE fully in public view and must be sure to obey the laws or risk instant arrest or death and in many places you must have a CP in order to Open Carry. (For the record I am licenced in Arizona, Utah and New Hampshire, am a citizen of Vermont, and both CC and OC.)

80-90 million gun owners today didn't shoot anyone and most didn't threaten anyone. A few criminals did. Please don't equate the legal gun owners and the criminals. They really aren't the same.

[billh58]

202. Sigh...

You win. I simply can't argue with your impeccable NRA logic. Know where I can buy an M-107?

[PavePusher]

219. Possibly. Google is your friend.

Just make sure you do the appropriate BATFE paperwork, which also has to be signed off by your local law enforcement branch.

Oh, and have a metric butt-load of money. Them thangs ain't cheep.

[billh58]

220. Thanks!

;-)

[twitomy]

230. Ah! A new weapon for those blasted ground hogs! NT

[AlbertCat]

41. carrying a loaded weapon in public is a right the founders deemed important enough to recognize...

carrying a loaded weapon in public is a right the founders deemed important enough to recognize in our 2nd amendment,

The second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


It does not say anything about bearing them in public. And of course, the Militia stuff comes 1st, before anything else, so that is the reason for bearing arms, in order to have a well regulated militia, not so you can parade around any damn place you please with a loaded weapon. It's quite clear.

[Roland99]

66. +1

[azureblue]

84. assuming

the person carrying the gun has a grain of common sense, and knows how to defend the gun from being taken from his person. Which this clod does not.

[PavePusher]

193. Weeeeeeelll,

"That turns out not to be the case, sir."

[PSzymeczek]

91. The founding fathers

stipulated the right to keep and bear arms to relate to a "well-regulated militia". Do any of these jerks belong to the National Guard?

[Enthusiast]

107. It is a matter of judgement

If the guy didn't mind having cross hairs trained on his head the entire time then I guess it is his choice. The secret service has to protect the president. You are hearing this from an avid hunter

[Madball]

138. Way off

"compensating for a feeling of inadequacy and low self-esteem"

How about the inability of the police to protect you? police are here to enforce the laws on the books not protect John Q. taxpayer, that's up to you to do.

When seconds count the police are only minutes away

[billh58]

159. From who or what? n/t

[florida08]

12. the Looney Tunes

soundtrack sure is appropriate for that ending

[Bluerthanblue]

13. he said something very telling towards the end- I think he was afraid

to come without his gun.

Seriously.

He's a coward, and a fool.- and as a NH Native- he doesn't speak for me. And I WAS disturbed by his brandishing his firearm openly, while carrying a sign he clearly doesn't understand the meaning of.

:nuke:

[PavePusher]

196. A gun in a holster is not brandishing.

Brandishing would be holding it in your hand and waving it or displaying in a threatening manner. It is settled case law that a properly holstered firearm, open or concealed, does not, in and of itself, constitute brandishing or threatening behavior.

But feel free to prattle on about that which you clearly are uninformed.

Live Free Or Die.

[HALO141]

211. Open display

is NOT brandishing.

From Merriam-Webster:
1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner


You (and others) may be offended by his actions and you can certainly feel any way about it you want to. But his presence there, even armed, was not "menacing" or "aggressive" as evidenced by the fact that he was still sufficiently ambulatory to be interviewed by Mathews later.

[RollWithIt]

15. I think that this guys particular problem is he's just a gun nut... not a shooter though...

He just has this fixation on guns. I have an uncle like that. Crazy about guns and safety for his family. But he'd never hurt a fly.

[AlbertCat]

45. But he'd never hurt a fly.

On purpose....

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

18. I burst out laughing when he mentioned Ron Paul.

This guy's drunk so much kool-aid, he probably pisses red sugar.

[orleans]

69. (eeew--thanks for *that* lovely visual.....blech...) n/t

[bc3000]

19. I don't think you people are making any sense.

He had a permit to carry the gun. The conversation should end there.

This anti-gun reflex from a lot of you city people loses Democrats a lot of votes. We laugh at the simpletons lamenting the imminent theft of their firearms by the democrats, and then freak out because one guy was legally carrying a legal firearm outside a political event. I guess the gun crazies aren't so crazy after all.

[LuckyTheDog]

21. Wrong

When you also carry a sign that makes an overt threat of violence, and when you carry it as a way to express your disdain for the president, then the conversation is just getting started.

This guy was fooling nobody. He was making a threat.

[paulsby]

27. not according to the law he wasn't

fwiw, my state has the exact same clearly defined right. the right to carry openly. it is not a threat, any more than carrying a sign that says "i love cream cheese" is a threat. in certain places, carrying signs can be limited, and this doesn't run afoul of the 1st. in certain places, open carry is limited (in those states that allow it), but merely carrying openly is not a threat, and his sign did NOT meet the true threats standard established under constitutional law. study brandenberg and get back to me

[AlbertCat]

47. carrying openly is not a threat

Yes it is. I think it is so it is a threat to me. The guy with the weapon doesn't get to decide.


Still doesn't answer WHY he carried a gun to a presidential event. Was there not enough protection there for him already? I mean, the Secret Service?...police....? It's not like he went to a dog fight, y'know. I bet the Secret Service might disagree with your threat assessment too.

You can ignore the context of the 2nd Amendment all you want, but the militia prerequisite is there.. And you pretend to ignore the context of taking a gun to a presidential town hall meeting in an atmosphere of ranting and yelling and violence all you want, but it doesn't lessen the threat.

Don't you gun nuts ever get tired of playing dense?

[orleans]

72. "Still doesn't answer WHY he carried a gun to a presidential event"

sure it does

the maroon wanted to exercise

so, he decided rather than sit-ups he would exercise his right to be a dickhead

because he just felt like exercising around obama--can he help it if obama just happened to be there today?

hey! it's a free country! i can exercise wherever i want!

oh, wait...maybe he was thinking about starting a militia and *that's* why he was...carrying a sign....hinting about spilling the blood of tyrants.


on second thought:

why isn't there an iq test for buying a gun?

[NoSheep]

67. I'd say you are pretty much a sociopath if you can't recognize the difference

between carrying a loaded gun in public, at an event, where emotions have been deliberately tweeked by corporate interests to a VERY high level, about trying to get a better HEALTH CARE system (can you imagine?)and carrying a sign that says "I love cream cheese".

Now you can sit here and play the devil's advocate all you want, but I hope when you lay your head down tonight, you will realize that there are serious consequences that result from your rhetoric. Just because I was born with an asshole, doesn't mean I have the right to shit in your face, m'kay? At least this is what reasonable people would assume. Thankfully, the founders you so faithfully quote were more sensible than you are. Hopefully, if you'd been around in those days, someone would have taken you out into the wood shed and beaten the dog shit out of you, because CLEARLY, VIOLENCE is the only thing you understand.

Are you a person with free will, or a machine that just spouts rhetoric out of context?

Please. Put me on ignore. That way we can be sure to continue avoiding aggravating each other.

[PavePusher]

31. The sign was a paraphrsed version of a famous quote.

Did you feel threatened because this man was using his Civil Rights?

How progressive of you.

[NoSheep]

68. Progressive has nothing to do with threatening people who are trying to do good .

[PSzymeczek]

92. The phrase was carefully paraphrased

to condone violence.

[mlevans]

161. Actually, it didn't merely condone.

It advocated.

[Enthusiast]

111. In light of all the threats

on President Obama's life?

The guy had cross hairs trained on his head for the entire event. Believe me it was not from the single expert marksman there would have been several. Does that sound like good judgment or the proper venue to be carrying?

[LuckyTheDog]

172. Do you know the entire quote?

Suppose I came to a GW Bush event with a gun and a sign that said "sometimes leaders need to be shot." Would you have defended my rights then? Or would you have called for me to be sent to GITMO?

[LuckyTheDog]

173. Do you know the entire quote?

Suppose I came to a GW Bush event with a gun and a sign that said "sometimes leaders need to be shot." Would you have defended my rights then? Or would you have called for me to be sent to GITMO?

[PavePusher]

199. I seem to remember quite a few...

threatening signs and chants by Bush protesters. For the record, I agreed with many of them.

Many politicians and candidates have been hung in effigy. Can you imagine the "racism" hew and cry that would spark today? All I am saying is that it's a bit late to cry about people exercising free speach. That horse burned the barn down back in 2004...

[LuckyTheDog]

227. Threatening the president...

... is not protected speech.

[PavePusher]

236. It should be.

I also think that doing so will and should get one some extra scrutiny from appropriate Law Enforcement to determine whether or not one intends actual harm. If the individual is only venting off some frustration, end of story.

I think the term we are discussing here is "Prior Restraint". In other words, you can't limit rights based on what someone MIGHT do. You ARE allowed to be watchful and take precautions to ensure that anyone who actually tries to do harm can be stopped.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

[LuckyTheDog]

241. Many on the right...

... make those arguments now specifically because they would like to see this president assassinated. They did not say the same things when GW Bush was president.

[bigbrother05]

188. He was perceived as a threat because that was his intent

The side arm and sign were clearly intended to send a specific message. About the only thing more explicit would have been a sign saying "I'm armed and will kill if I think it's necessary".

If he was intent on defending the 2nd Amendment, why a sign that said "I support the 2nd Amendment" or similar sentiment?

[sasquuatch55]

129. INTIMIDATION!

nt

[democracy1st]

22. lol man ur at the wrong website here ya go

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

[joeglow3]

154. This is why living in the US is not easy

It we want to respect what made this country great, we have to accept and, yes, even defend people's rights to do things we may find reprehensible. I would never be a friend of this guy. If I saw him, I would probably exercise my right to free speech with him. I would whole-heartedly support a change to the 2nd amendment (not abolishment, as I do support a slimmed down version of what we have now). But, until that day comes, I will fight for the rights of all citizens, even if I oppose them (isn't this, after all, what we are doing with the healthcare issue right now?).

[PavePusher]

200. I don't think so 'tater...

[Cha]

29. Well, the conversation isn't ending there so boo hoo.

Little batshit crazy brainwashed gun toter doesn't have the balls to show up with just his crazyass pissing sign ..he's got a gun so everyone can see what a big bad stupid ass he is.

[Touchdown]

52. Oh' he's crazy. If Obama was as nutty as this guy...

He'd say "Lookie here! You brought one pea shooter to teach me a lesson? I've got the entire US military at my disposal, Swe'pea. You're move Pal!"

[azureblue]

82. you don't need a permit

to exercise common sense- something this Bush look alike totally lacks. He's so bent on proving a "point" that he did not think of what could happen- like a knock on the head, somebody rips the gun out of its holster and starts shooting. This guy looks like he couldn't defend his gun even if he had his full facilities. A holster like that places the gun too far away for a person to protect it in a crowd, and you, as a gun owner, should have recognized that right off. Instead, you go all second amendment, and, just like this character, ignore common sense altogether.

[EnviroBat]

126. Spot on. I was begining to wonder when someone was going to inject some

logic into this discourse. This moron was jeopardizing those around him by carrying a weapon that would have been accessible to a 3 year old.

[PavePusher]

201. Actually, it looked like he was using a retention holster...

of a type that many police can't open easily. This is common among Open Carriers so that if some idiot does try to sneak up on you, he will have major problems.

I'll double check the video at home, can't download here at work.

[DainBramaged]

102. "A lot of you city people" nice comment I guess you is smarter than us?

So you don't consider yourself a Democrat? You carry a loaded gun to meet the President, you should be marched off in cuffs. You idiots think you're so cool carrying your little penis extensions to prove you is so manly, why not just bring a machine gun?


Fear and paranoia, that's what it's about, the boogieman is going to get you but not if you have your gun.

[Enthusiast]

108. It is a matter of judgement

If the guy didn't mind having cross hairs trained on his head the entire time then I guess it is his choice. The secret service has to protect the president. You are hearing this from an avid hunter

[Mopar151]

139. Who you callin' city boy?

I'm a NH native, and have NEVER lived in a city. My friends include ardent deer hunters, serious target shooters, trapshooters and more. Calling someone a slob hunter in these parts is a serious charge, with serious consequences.

Simply put - packing a pistol in public = instant paraiah in these parts. Friends corner you for LONG talks. You are unwelcome in bars, reaturaunts, and stores. Acquaintances avoid you like a leper.
Run your mouth about gun rights in the wrong context (like to the town tax collector), or wave a gun around where it does'nt belong, and you can look forward to having all your guns impounded. That is the reality of gun rights in NH.
I would concur with the posters who said this yutz spent yesterday in the crosshairs of a Secret Service sniper - as well he should have. I garon-dam-tee his concealed carry permit is getting more scrutiny now than a fake Kenyan birth certificate. He was let alone so as not to cause a disturbance, or provide him a platform.

[Madball]

140. +1

So true, the guy is exercising rights, apparently not the rights people on DU agree with.

[SoxFan]

167. Wrong, he didn't have a permit

NH law allows individuals to open carry without a permit. A permit is only required if you carry a concealed weapon. Any wingding can strap a pistol on his or her hip and strut down Lafayette Road like this jerk did.

[LuckyTheDog]

20. This guy is a terrorist enabler

Let's look what is on the table here: A loaded gun, a tactical holster, plus a sign that makes a veiled reference to the "blood of tyrants" being used to water the tree of liberty. It all adds up to a threat to the life of the president. This bozo says he was not advocating violence. I'm not buying it. He was sending a message.

[PavePusher]

203. Please stop pushing...

Republican talking points!

Jebus.

[The_Commonist]

23. Ah! A Ron Paulian....

Figures!

[bamacrat]

25. I have never heard of "open carry" before.

I always though a gun had to be concealed when in public? What a crazy dude, his lack of knowledge was amazing but predictable.

[slackmaster]

36. It's legal in most states including California

Here it must be unloaded unless you have a permit to openly carry one loaded.

[PavePusher]

30. You are correct .

"Morans like this is what we're up against people."

Chris Matthews IS a "moran". The armed man was completely legal, was not posing a threat, was not making any threats, merely exercising his Constitutional Rights (At least three of them AT THE SAME TIME. Oh, the humanity...). Civil Rights are not subordinate to the proximity of an elected politician. They are our employees and WE tell THEM what to do.

Chris needs to quit the hand-wringing.

[windbreeze]

88. How nice that he could exercise his rights like that...but..

I was always told that there's a time and a place for everything, and no matter what you personally feel, imo, that was neither the time NOR the place to be carrying a loaded weapon, and yes I own a couple..but I also have the sense to know where NOT to take them, just because I can...I wonder if anyone around him felt as though THEIR Constitutional rights were being stepped on by his actions..I wasn't there, so I don't know...but I do know that if I had found myself standing next to a guy with a loaded weapon, and carrying a sign like his, while knowing that the President was due...I would have felt threatened, and that perhaps my right to assemble was being put in jeopardy, by his actions...

Now unless you know this guy personally...you don't, do you??.... you can only conjecture as to what his point was...as can I...you see one side.....I see another....I've been around the web on other sites, and I KNOW what I SEE and READ that some people are telling/encouraging others to do, and I also have read what their purpose/point is...intimidating, and causing a ruckus is part of their plan..this guy...well, I figure, he was doing exactly what he felt someone told him to do...and he WAS making a point...that you refuse to see it...tells me a lot about you...and I think you might have lost your way...

I agree with the person up thread that made the comment about how there should be a psychological exam before allowing people to own a gun, or before they are given a permit to carry..either openly or concealed...or at least some kind of a test that shows whether the person has any common sense...wb

[PavePusher]

204. So, does your right to self-defense...

end when the President comes to town?

"that was neither the time NOR the place to be carrying a loaded weapon"

Interesting. I disagree, but interesting.

[windbreeze]

218. ??

The guy was obviously after his moment of fame, and he got it...

I submit that this situation had NOTHING to do with a/his/my right to self defense, whether or not the Pres. was in town....You, Sir, ARE making an attempt to muddy the water...I stand by my statement.....wb

[PavePusher]

221. Maybe, maybe not.

People who Open Carry do so for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it IS to make a political statement. Oh, wait, that is a Constitutional Right too. Hmmm.

Sometimes it is NOT for political reasons. I'd be happy to explain why, but it's probably a topic for a seperate thread (in the Gungeoun, alas). Let me know if you'd like to discuss it.

[BREMPRO]

34. Living in rural Maine for 5 years after Boston for 20, and having friends and neighbors who

are gun owners and a nephew who worked for Ron Paul, I think i have a better perspective on this guy than the MSM. The MSM is portraying him as a nut and threat to the president for shock value. He may be naive in how he believed he would be perceived, or deliberately provocative to get attention, but i believe he was sincere in his belief that he was exercising his right to bear arms to preserve his right to do so. It's true it's not the same as carrying a gun in the city- it's just not unusual to see hunters with rifles and pistols in the rural public. Now Portsmouth is not rural NH, it's a small cosmopolitan city and his presence with a gun might have concerned many. Mathews clearly was trying to intimidate him with his rapid fire questions, was a bit of a bully to him, but had good points. Imagine yourself being on TV for maybe the first time and being shot questions by Tweety-not an easy task to respond. When he went after him about the combination of the sign and the gun I thought that was where the protester's presence at the rally and arguments could be easily misinterpreted. You don't have a sign saying "It's time to refresh the tree of liberty" with knowledge of the Jefferson root of the quote "that from time to time the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the BLOOD of tyrants, and patriots" I honestly believe he felt he was doing two things separately- calling for a grass roots revolution on our political system, AND exercising his legal right to bear arms. I don't believe in his mind there was a connection and did not intend it as a threat. Naive, or perhaps deliberately provocative to get media coverage for his message. Listen to him again and i think you will hear this.

Now before you judge him too harshly- think about how we felt when Bush was ruining this country and the signs we carried. Also read the primary objectives of his group (the small print on the sign pointed to a web site called www.restoretherepublic.com)

They are not totally wacko freepers, and even though now some of there objectives are naive, many I would bet DUers would agree with:

Our Primary Objectives:
Stop the polarization of America
Stop the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties over our political system
Shut down the Federal Reserve system
Return America’s gold to Fort Knox and have it audited
Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.
Make computerized voting illegal in all 50 states
Keep the internet free and out of the control of large institutions
Rescind the law called the Real ID Act so Americans never have to carry a National ID Card
Make it illegal to implant RFID chips in human beings
Educate juries to the fact that they have the right to determine the law as well as the facts of a case
Educate juries to the fact that they are not obligated to follow the instructions of a judge
Stop Globalization because it is the path to a one world government
Protect our borders
Restore the environment
Put an end to the Patriot Act
Sign up millions of Americans so we can accomplish our objectives

[billh58]

39. Oh Puhleeze...

Give me a CT, tin-foil hat, Ron Paulian, break...

[BREMPRO]

48. he does appear to be more radical than the organization he represented with his sign

more pro-gun, anti-government, free-stater, libertarian. The organization Restore the Republic was started by Aaron Russo- of Freedom to Fascism Bush era film fame. I think this guy is way over the edge politically, and doesn't represent the heart of Russo's message. Tweety was right to call him out for the lack of relevance of his sign and gun to a health care debate- his answer was predictably incoherent because his purpose for being there was to only generally protest any government funded or run programs and his characterizations of the right and left were cartoon cliche's. But I still maintain he was never a threat and within his constitutional legal right to protest with his message, and carry a firearm, even if it was stupid under the circumstances. The threat is the concealed weapon, not the guy out in open.

[Solomon]

109. in other words, white guys get away with anything.

[Enthusiast]

113. I would like to see

a black guy show up at the town hall meetings openly carrying. He wouldn't even make it to the meeting.

[zoff]

40. Only in New Hampshire?

I've taken day trips there and I've never seen anyone carry a gun the way he did. My problem with gun toting in public, besides the throwback to the wild wild west, is that a sanity license doesn't come with it. Sure it's not in the constitution, but many other things aren't. The guy is passionate about the 2nd, but passionate is a few steps from nuts. While his placard was inconsistent with the event, (govt is giving not taking) it is distasteful and sent the wrong message. Given the history of the human race, it is but natural to be concerned and even afraid of anyone who bears them in public, other than police and the military who use firearms in the course of their "socialized" work. There's a reason 49(?) other states don't permit this.

[graywarrior]

56. Only republican state reps carry guns in their suitcase and get caught at the airport....lol

[PavePusher]

205. Uuummm...

Carrying a gun in your suitcase at an airport is perfectly legal (except in Chicago and New York City/Newark). As long as you check it in before trying to go through security.

[FlyByNight]

42. The DOD definition of terrorism...

is "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

Given American political history and that the President is African-American, how could anyone in their right fucking mind think that his armed appearance wasn't threatening or menacing in anyway?

MORON.

:grr:

[im1013]

46. Honestly

I think he was just looking for his 5 minutes of fame (a la Joe-the-Plumber)...
god knows he's too damned ugly to get it any other way!!!

[Dirigo]

49. Stupid Son-of-a-bitch N.H. Handjob Gun Nut Should Be Arrested

The ignoramus should have been frog hopped into the Portsmouth City lockup for safekeeping when brandishing a loaded firearm at a Presidential Town Hall Meeting on Healthcare. In fact, no stupid Republicon' (emphasis on the con) should be allowed within ONE MILE of any president of the United States current or past. How ever did this cretin get to such a town hall setting. I could give a flying fig whether he had a concealed gun permit or not or authorized to carry a loaded gun. He's not a police officer and he wasn't acting in an official capacity. He was a threat and a danger to decent civil society. Secondly, I think wherever this screwball works should be visited by the Secret Service and DHS for a sit down and little chat with those he works with. When will the authorities get the point that people like this are the underbelly of society and the masses need protection from these bullying cretins. Where where were the ignoramuses from the Reich with their beloved loaded guns in public places the past 8 years when President Katrina or President Pissypants or President Smirky McFlightsuit or President McCokespoon was denying rights of the citizens? I have to ask, is it really because we have a black man in the White House that these dangerous homicidal crackpots strap on their loaded guns to come out to intimidate civil society? I hope the Secret Service and DHS has this Nutbag on a No Fly List and a Cretin that needs to be located and held for safekeeping whenever a President visits New England!

[BREMPRO]

51. so what you are saying is that he should be arrested and be put on a terrorist list even if there

is no law that prevented him to do what he did? We are a nation of laws and under the constitution and NH law he had the right to carry that weapon. You and I disagree with that law but i'll defend his right because its a slippery slope if you start picking and choosing which laws you choose to obey and those you choose to ignore. I seem to remember a recent president who believed he could ignore the constitution and put anyone he felt a threat in jail and throw away the key. Was it smart to carry the weapon to the rally?,no. Was it legal?, yes. I'm CERTAIN he was surrounded by secret service agents and never anywhere near the president or a threat. He's a gun rights nut, but not a shooter. The shooters are the ones you don't see in public.

[azureblue]

83. Boy, are you ignoring

what would have happened if he had pulled this stunt at a Bush town hall meeting just a few years ago....

[Enthusiast]

114. Fact. nt

[PavePusher]

206. And I thought the whole point was...

that our side is BETTER than Bushes side.

But so many people seem to want to use the same immoral tactics against their outrage-du-jour.

Why do we need the Republican boogey-man again? I forget...

[MiddleRiverRefugee]

50. So what's his next stop? Pittsburgh? n/t

[scarface2004]

53. guys who open carry....

have penis you can t find with a magnifying glass!!! frickin paultard!!

[harvey007]

54. Good Job, Hardballs!

Chris Matthews did a great job of grilling that jerk-off.

Every gun owner knows what he did was highly dangerous and irresponsible.

Volatile protests and pistols aren't a good mix, especially in the midst of all those nut-jobs.

The guy was using both hands to hold up his protest sign. What if one of those nut-jobs had grabbed his LOADED gun out of his holster?

Those of us who are responsible gun-owners need to speak out against this type of behavior.

You don't show up for a town hall meeting with the President of the United States with a handgun strapped to your leg!

[billh58]

55. Finally

A breath of fresh air from a sane gun owner. Thanks for the reality check.

[kid a]

62. welcome to DU oh sane one! +1

[Enthusiast]

115. Thank you! nt

[florida08]

170. Absolutely

and well said. Out of the entire crowd he was the one with the loaded pistol so I don't see it as a casual common occurrence as he suggested. There's good reason why guns aren't allowed in bars unless your the owner. Places and events that could kindle volatility are those places..schools and churches are others for obvious reasons. I would like to see the arsenal that's stored in his house. Would bet he's one of those NWO conspiracy guys. :thumbsup:

[PavePusher]

207. In 40-some states...

guns ARE allowed in bars, unless the owner/operator posts otherwise.

"There's good reason why guns aren't allowed in bars unless your the owner."


Look folks, I don't mind people being against guns. JUST PLEASE USE SOME FRIGGIN' FACTS!
And RESEARCH. It's the age of Google, for crying out loud how hard is that?!

[florida08]

213. excuse the hell out of me?

Perhaps you should do some reading yourself and get some FRIGGIN FACTS moron!

http://www.drslawfirm.com/gunsinbars.html

[PavePusher]

222. O.K., I will look this up tonight.

http://handgunlaw.us/

Yes, I'm going to go through all 50 states.

If I'm wrong, I will order my Crow raw, with a side of dumb-ass, and both feet in my mouth for desert.

If I'm right I expect the same from you.

I have my doubts about assuming unbiased info from a party in the lawsuit against Tennessee's new law.

Please note that it is not neccesary to call people names in reasoned debate.

[florida08]

237. I apologize

for the moron statement. I never do that. It was your JUST PLEASE USE SOME FRIGGIN' FACTS! that was suggestive. We have rifles, revolvers and CWL. The issue being discussed was about responsible ownership and judgment. I don't argue with the man's right to carry only his judgment in why he felt the need to bring one to that event.

Gun owners should not feel threatened when a democrat becomes president yet gun/ammo sales skyrocketed when Obama was elected. Coincidence? The NRA sometimes fuels the fear unnecessarily. They do get the message out about legislation that might infringe on those rights regardless of the party in power. However they're still a lobbyist foremost.

No law dismisses the gun owner's responsibility in how he uses that right. Brandishing in public events is foolish imo. So is taking one into a bar. I certainly hope as a responsible owner your not advocating that regardless of the laws of his state. If one feels the need as a civilian to be armed in a bar his better judgement would be not to patronize the place.

[JournalistKev87]

57. Ron Paul wasn't even an option for president. Who's he fooling?

I swear, if Obama ends up murdered by one of these chucklefucks, all bets are fucking off! :grr:

[DFW]

58. Kudos to Matthews for letting this nut spill his guts

This guy is a living testament to why we need

1.) more gun control,
2.) more education,
3.) more mental health care, and
4.) less right wing fanatics on the U.S. Supreme Court.

[LynneSin]

61. This guy is an idiot

Seriously, could he find a dumber idiot

[Roland99]

63. Ron Paul voter spouting BS rhetoric. About as brain-dead as Sarah Failin.

[lenegal]

64. Way too bad the Secret Service did not put him out of

his freeper misery. I would have broken this retard's kneecaps.

[SKKY]

97. Seriously? Really? We needed to go there?

How does that statement advance the discussion? :shrug:

[Enthusiast]

116. If he had so much

as touched his holster his head would have exploded.

[KeepItReal]

160. Roger that.

<eom>

[twitomy]

231. Broken his kneecaps after being shot by the SS?

How courageous of you!:sarcasm:

But if you meant BEFORE he was shot, I would have like to have seen you try!

Maybe it was protection from people like you he was protecting himself from LOL!

[Roland99]

65. "The question is, 'Why don't people bear arms these days?'" .. ?!?!?!

What a NUTCASE!!

The reason is SANE Americans don't feel the need to bear arms during the course of their daily lives, much less at a Presidential town hall!!!!

[Libertas1776]

70. This guy is

a total fucking idiot, waste of space.

And I am not one to gripe about the 2nd Amendment but I see absolutely no conceivable reason to bring a loaded weapon on your person to a public forum event. Your not in your home, your not out on some dark empty street, you are in packed event full of security for the POTUS, hence there is no rationale here that it was for your protection. You don't bring A FREAKING GUN to a presidential event! We have had plenty of instances where such mixes have had very BAD FUCKING RESULTS! He brought it to cause trouble, simple as that. If this ass hat pulled this stunt when shrub was Prez, you bet your sweet ass he would have been arrested, tazered, manhandled, and disappeared to Guantanamo.

This isn't the Old West nor are you CHARLES FUCKING BRONSON!!! This is the real world and lunatics like this guy need to be taken off the street.

[Butch350]

71. He thought he was going to make a point.

If the police or secret service had disarmed him - he was gonna yell, "see they want to take our guns away".

[Libertas1776]

73. That is probably

is exact intention. "Look! Obama the socialist Kenyan is takin' my guns so he can take us to the re-edumaction camps. It's all comin' true like Batshit Bachmann said!" :sarcasm:
These people make me sick.

[NoSheep]

75. They took our Guuuuns!

just reminds me of Southpark.

[Libertas1776]

76. and our joooobs! ; )

[MrsBrady]

78. i had this on DVR....we watched this when my husband got home..

the guy gave me the total creeps.

He is scary, but he certainly doesn't scare me away from the Democratic cause.

[Johnny2X2X]

79. I understand this guy

I do not agree with him, but under the circumstances he handled himself well. He is an honest person IMO. He was able to defend his positions well enough under duress.

Stupid for using the quote he used while wearing a fire arm, but not a nutcase and was thoughtful enough for me. Not one of the mindless idiots we've seen disrupt these meetings while not knowing anything about the subjects.

[AzNick]

85. Tweety did a good job. NT

[4lbs]

87. I think it was either Keith or Rachel who mentioned that this guy's sign was the exact same message

and image on it that Timothy McVay (the Oklahoma City federal building bomber) had on his T-shirt when the FBI arrested him.

So.., we have what appears to be an anti-government freak appearing within shouting distance of the one person who is the embodiment of the US Government, the President of the United States.

And this freak is armed. Just great.... :eyes:

I'm surprised he didn't just show up with a fertilizer bomb.

[Enthusiast]

117. Yes, and it was a good point. nt

[TommyPaine]

89. Every person should be armed? At all times?

Let’s just assume he’s referring to adults and not “every person”. Now let’s picture an America in which every adult is armed at all times. Does that include felons? Mentally ill persons? Persons with neurological disorders, or chronic drug and alcohol abusers? An “informed, armed America.” What a fantasy that is. A ridiculous, frightening fantasy.

[earcandle]

93. He wants to bring back the wild west in new england.

can you imagine how easy it will be to trigger a civil war if
people are carrying?  
people are in such a state of shock, that it will only take
"belonging" to cause what
has happened repeatedly to other countries, and the chickens
have come home to roost.

Listen, we have a great responsibility to do what Chris is
doing and to have our leaders
manage this with consultants if need be... some social media
available in the public eye
to dampen the need or desire for this kind of public display. 
We should not be making it
news, we should just be following the rule of law and making
sure everyone concerned is
in the loop.  Don't tell the public until the solution has
arrived.   We have to be careful
not to panic people into thinking they need to have a gun. 

These fuckers are really sick.  Those people who sell guns are
addicted to wealth and making money.
They so want to rebuild America and the insurance companies
want new opportunities to try out their new 
reform agreements en masse. 

"As a public speaker that guy made Ron Paul sound like
Dennis Kucinich" says my partner, laughing. 

THE BEST REVENGE IS TO LIVE WELL, And the only remedy that is
not a double edged sword that can really work and save public
dollars on security (which we should really try to
collectively do together to demonstrate civility at the heart
of our culture) 
is find it in your heart to empathize, understand and forgive
the other with self generated compassion.  
That means you got to feel it in your heart.   When we can
forgive the perpertrator, we are released from our misery for
revenge and more pain. I, and the OTHER, we are all guilty and
no one is to blame.  Stop this hurling toward absence and get
a life.   


In our benign caste system: 
Let the rich get richer, but do it making the quality of life
beautiful for all (spend some money) 
Let the poor get poorer, but let their alms be holy so that
their needs are met. (give to the poor directly)
Let the middle class work, because work, and the consummation
of desires rock their world!   (bursting with activity, and
intention, creatives, socials, intellectuals, with the help of
the philanthropists, cause investments)

doesn't that sound more fun than having a civil war? 

[PavePusher]

208. If you do your research...

the "Wild West" actually... wasn't.

Don't let your preconception of frontier America come from movies, the MSM or fictional literature.

[Mnpaul]

96. He quotes John Lott's gun study

The study Lott can seem to provide any evidence of being done.

In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999-2000, Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997. However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said a hard drive crash had destroyed his data set, the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Following extensive publicity, David Gross, a Minnesota gun activist and former NRA board member came forward to say that he had been interviewed for a gun survey, and he thought that he was interviewed in the spring of 1997, probably by people working for Lott. <4> Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,<45> but Lott defends the survey's existence and accuracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott

The hard drive ate my homework

[cornermouse]

99. Reader's Digest version of what's his face's reason for bringing the gun and sign.

I brought the sign and the gun to try to frighten the opposition into stopping.

[DainBramaged]

101. This asshat needs to get woke up with a sledge hammer

No one is taking his rights away, and ths scumbag will be back in the news one day soon. Oh and his penis must be the size of a peanut.

[Enthusiast]

103. Can you imagine leftists

allowed to carry at protests anywhere at any time in this country? What would have happened if anti-Iraq War protesters carried? This is a fucking joke! It is not about the 2nd amendment, it's about stupid.

[Recursion]

132. Ironically, that's how gun control came to California

CA had very liberal gun laws until the 1960's. Some Black Panthers decided to exercise their legal right to bear arms and showed up at city halls carrying. About 20 minutes later, restrictive gun control laws were rammed through the legislature.

[graywarrior]

106. When are we gonna start talking about the John Birchers.

That what this guy is, endorsed and supported by Ron Paul. They have infiltrated NH and no one is either aware of it or wants to talk about it. The tactics they use are dangerous and trust me, they are forming a movement which I really think the birthers are part of.

[Klukie]

112. this guy refuses to acknowledge positive progression in this country.

As with anything in life we need to change certain behaviors to progress to a more civilized society. For Chrisakes...does this dude really see value in returning to the days of the wild wild west. This country has turned on it head and I am dizzy.

[GivePeaceAchance]

118. He's got a bizarre interpretation of polite society.

[whatchamacallit]

119. We got shunted off to Herr Bush's "Free Speech Zones"

and these fuckers get to show up at presidential events with loaded guns and threatening signs. WTF?

[ablueview]

121. Wow

He actually thinks it would have been better if EVERYONE had brought guns to the protest?

[chelsea0011]

122. Does he alaways carry a weapon when walking around in NH?

If not, why show up at a Presidential rally with one?

[Fla Dem]

123. How many protester will now show up in Montana and Colorado packing heat?

Friday Obama will be in Montana and Saturday in Colorado for town hall meetings. Both states are open "carry states" as best I can tell. This loony tune and the exposure he received will no doubt encourage others of his ilk to show up armed at these 2 events. This will now be the new "norm" for the rw loonies when they are protesting Democratic events. If so, at some point there will be a tragedy.

[windbreeze]

134. Testing...testing....is the name of this game...like a child who pushes their parent...

until the parent is forced to take action....so when this parent comes down on these unruly kids...then what?? They will scream that Obama stepped on their Constitutional rights, and needs to be removed from office, and let's not forget he's a fascist, a nazi, and that he's going to take our guns....

This guy isn't going to be a once in a lifetime thing...There will be more like him...because there are those who are encouraging others to take these actions..they are attempting to bring about a crisis, by doing exactly what they need to do, to bring about that exact crisis, while not being too obvious...so the ones who are encouraging others, can then sit back and bitch, complain and whine about the crisis they just knew was coming...(yet they will refuse to admit their part in making it happen)

Remembering how the guy the last 8 years dealt with this crap, and made sure it didn't happen to him(selection, loyalty oaths, riot police, etc)....I'd say Obama would be well within HIS Constitutional rights, to NOT show up where there are loaded guns present...I don't believe there is anything written in the Presidential behavior book, about how he's required, as part of his job description, to literally put his life on the line on a daily basis....(personally, I don't believe it's in his makeup to stay away, and imo, that's where it gets sticky)wb

[Fla Dem]

165. Yes it's become a very slippery slope. Could be the spark that ignites

an armed rebellion.

[windbreeze]

175. I will only say....I agree...n/t

[joeglow3]

156. VERY good point

Look for entire groups to do just that, now.

[EnviroBat]

125. My question is:

How the fuck did this asshole get within a mile of our President? Where the hell is the secret service? Are they opening the door for these lunatics?

[NYDem Observer]

127. Can't believe there are people here defending this nut job.

So what if he was lawful in his right to carry an open firearm to a presidential event, it doesn't make it a good idea. As far as I'm concerned his actions were tantamount to a threat on the President's life. There was absolutely no justification for what he did.

[Recursion]

131. I defend civil rights, even when morons exercise them stupidly

Don't you?

[billh58]

162. Yes, but

Not the abuse of Civil Rights, or at the expense of someone else's Civil Rights.

[Recursion]

174. Agreed. But he didn't infringe on anyone else's rights.

The gun was unloaded and holstered the entire time. Nobody's rights or safety were infringed. And, as I keep repeating, it's much better from a security standpoint that he carried openly than if he had carried concealed.

[billh58]

177. Unloaded?

This dimwit told Matthews that the gun WAS loaded ("why would anyone carry an unloaded gun..."). Your assertion that "nobody's rights or safety were infringed," is a subjective statement at best. He held his sign (which implied that he advocated violence) with both hands, which would have allowed anyone to grab his holstered weapon at any time. It happens to cops all of the time, even with "safety" holsters.

It takes a special permit to carry a concealed weapon in NH, and that is why the other idiot was arrested at this event: he had a concealed weapon in his truck.

Once again, the "right" to strap on a pistol in public comes with the responsibility to do so in a safe and sane mannor. As another NH gun-owner pointed out, any idiot walking around most NH towns openly carrying would be stopped and questioned as to WHY they were carrying. Open carry is fine in sparsely populated areas, such as a hunting preserve, but at a crowded venue with professional security present? Give me a break. It isn't the "weapon" that is at question here -- it is the idiot who chose to confront everyone with his stupidity.

Nobody's rights or safety were infringed? Bull hockey...;-)

[PavePusher]

209. So. We should violate his Civil Rights...

because he exercised his Civil Rights. Uh-huh.

Aren't we supposed to be BETTER then the last administration?!

You're giving me a freekin' migraine.

[subcomhd]

133. I believe in the 2nd and the 1st amendments

the guy broke no laws exercising the two.

HOWEVER

The way he chose to do so amounted to carrying a loaded gun along with a sign that called for the spilling of blood.

The Secret Service are fools if they don't have this guy under surveillance. I would say what he did gives them probable cause - consistent with the 4th amendment - to tap his phones, read his e-mail and search his house.

perfectly legal actions CAN be probable cause to investigate potential illegal activities.

ALSO - what a fucking nut!

[PavePusher]

223. Wow.

Patriot Act, anyone?

[Best_man23]

135. I see a visit from the Secret Service & FBI in this Moran's Future

[vicious12000]

137. When did an individual right excuse somebody from having a

motive seperate from it. when did it become a sufficient defense to an obvious alterior motive.sure he has a right to carry a gun. but i think people are being ignorant if there going to ignore the disgustingly obvious implication of potential violence that was in his sign."The tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants". And sure, the entire quote wasnt actually present on his sign,but something gives me the feeling he damn sure knew the significance of it. The only thing i wish is that Chris Matthews asked him what he thought was the defintion of a tyrant and if anybody at a TOWNHALL ON HEALTHCARE mind you. not terrorist's in the middle east or illegal immigrants but frigging healthcare!!! fitted the description. I think that wouldve given us a good idea of what this dishonest kook had in mind.And for all of the defenders, youre making an incomplete observation if you only focus on his right to carry a gun but not the implied context of his sign.

[ecstatic]

141. Kostric wanted to be heard; but who would be stupid enough to hold a conversation

with a loon carrying a gun? Would anyone dare question his opinion?

[keepCAblue]

143. In any other country (or during the Bush regime), this crackpot would've been arrested...

But here, in America, he gets his 15 minutes of fame--put on national television and given a platform to spew his lunacy.

[closeupready]

147. that's part of what disturbs me, how the media inadvertently glorifies what he did

his offensive bullshit stunt, by giving him face time on national TV.

[ronnykmarshall]

144. Freeps are going to protest Chris now.

Goddamn gun!! HATE SPEECH!

[Fire1]

145. ANOTHER idiot! n/t

[fascisthunter]

149. fetal alcohol syndrome

[Myrina]

153. Why were none of the Bushies were questioned with this voracity ...

.... over the last 8 years??
Why were none of Palin's outrageous statements challenged with this voracity over the LAST year??

It almost sounded to me like Matthews was trying extra hard to draw the distinction between this nutball and the GOP, so the
far-right can disown him/his tactics.


:shrug:

[LuckyLib]

157. We have found another moran, this one now on TV.

[newmac]

163. WHY is this nut being given airtime????

Why don't progressive law abiding citizens get a full half hour with Chris?

[newmac]

164. A firearm is INTIMIDATION

[DinahMoeHum]

166. It's called RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT OF THE PUBLIC. . .

and, sorry, but the 2nd Amendment does not allow you to do that shit, and it will not protect you in a court of law if you get prosecuted/sued for it.

:evilfrown:

[PavePusher]

210. No, it's not.

Settled case law. Look it up.

Stop the hand-wringing.

[VaYallaDawg]

169. I don't question that it's a civil right. I still don't believe it's right.

[billh58]

171. Idiots With Guns...

See this report for an example of gross abuse of the "rights" provided by the 2nd Amendment, and the idiotic way the NRA crowd misinterprets the meaning of a "well regulated militia":

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/12/national/main5237092.shtml

Don't get me wrong, I definitely support the right to arm bears -- but not free-range idiots.

[fascisthunter]

183. oh boy... they have convinced themselves of the meaning

it's unbelievably transparent.

[Flatulo]

176. I support this guy's right to open carry to a public event per NH law.

I also support the USSS' obligation to ventilate his skull if he so much as even twitches his right hand.

Very, very poor judgement, and exactly the wrong image that lawful gun owners want to project.

Well, he had his 15 minutes.

[Hulk]

180. Does this guy happen to act/look like a kook/idiot to anyone else besides me?

I know he is trying to contain his glee at being a thorn in the side of security concerned individuals at these heated town halls, but just looking at him and listening to his smart ass responses makes me concerned that he's about a loony as they come.

I sure do hate the way tweety interviews folks he doesn't agree with...even kooks. With all the tension and unease we experience now with this debate, this guy is NOT what anyone needs. Tweety can be such an ass hole as well. I think it actually rewarded this smart ass and his twisted ego.

[GinaMaria]

226. I think he needs medication

something seemed ay off. I got the crazy vibe from that one.

[billh58]

212. If this were a poll,

those opposed to the open carry of weapons would far outweigh the NRA nuts, even as well-trained and responsible as they claim to be. We are definitely in the majority in opposing a dubious "right" being exercised by the "armed private militia" crowd such as the Aryan Nation, the KKK, and other skinhead, rednecked, "survivalist" doom-and-gloom groups.

The fact that the vast majority of American citizens do not walk around in public with firearms strapped to their persons speaks volumes for the sanity of, and the progress made, by our society.

For those Americans who feel threatened, and insecure enough to need a weapon 24/7, and especially in public venues, I can only say that I feel truly sorry for you.

On the other hand, for those of you who enjoy hunting, target practice, and firearms competition under regulated and licensed circumstances, and who keep a gun for home protection, a sincere thank you for responsibly exercising your 2nd Amendment rights.

Now where did I put that damned hood and cross...?

[abelenkpe2]

243. Ron Paul supporters

I hope democrats are paying attention. Honestly, they need to be taken seriously. They are dangerous.

[keitai]

244. Matthews got the only sound byte he needed...

when he asked that if everyone who turned up to that rally had a gun, would it be safer?

[SunDrop23]

245. That guy is well overdue an ass kicking.

PLEASE come to David Price's town hall next week with that attitude so I can properly wipe that shit eating grin off your face.
Thanks.