My biggest worry about abandoning the Public Option is about guns

[FredStembottom]

It is imperative that this administration does not give the impression that brandishing weapons near the President gets you what you want!!!

We are at the most crucial moment for law-and-order imaginable.

Threaten With Guns/Get Your Way has never before been allowed to happen inside this country. Not during the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement or during any other major transition period.

For cryin' out loud! Teddy Roosevelt once gave his prepared comments after being shot by a would-be assassin!

An evolving gun chaos may only be one "Public Option" cave-in away.

Enacting what you know is right while under threat is simply what American Presidents periodically must contend with.

Mr. Obama, you must show that you will persevere in spite of the guns.

Do not reward the bullies! Oh my God, please don't!

[sea four]

1. I agree.

If they get their way now, they'll do it again in the future, because they know it works. And in the future they could get violent. They could end up being what brownshirts were in Germany....

:scared:

[obliviously]

2. Do you honestly

think this was about guns?

[Chulanowa]

4. Of course it isn't

But of course, that's the impression that will be taken by the lynch mobs, and they will feel encouraged. Threaten violence, get what you want. Which leads to the obvious ramifications of what will happen once they don't get what they want.

[FredStembottom]

5. Yes. It becomes, in part, about guns.

Now that the President has been personally threatened.... it becomes vital to not reward the threat-makers.

[obliviously]

7. To many compromises

were made in the bill it sucks so bad now it has lost democrat support. Time to scrap it and start over a little later and do it right next time. This isn't the national health care bill we asked for.

[cabluedem]

9. Lets use this as a platform for new assualt weapons ban! No sunset this time! nt

[krispos42]

10. Yeah, because it worked so well last time.

How's California's gun laws working, by the way?

[X_Digger]

17. Even CA's "assault weapons ban" doesn't work..

3 CA legal AR-15's

[cabluedem]

23. Quite well. A few people have been busted with them. Now they are felons. Hoo-rah! nt

[DrCory]

30. "I sense something. A presence I've not felt since..." N/T

[Statistical]

15. All rifles are used in less than 2% of homicides.

So called weapons that "assault" (as opposed to non "assualt weapons" which fire moonbeams and smiles) are a tiny fraction of that.
You could save more lives by banning all swimming pools.

You are a politicians favorite constituent.

They can take a ripe turd and slap a cool name on it and after taking a bite you will ask for seconds. There is no evidence that the "weapons that assault" ban did anything but raise the price of "scary looking but no more lethal than traditional looking" rifles for a few months.

[tuckessee]

3. The guns have nothing to do with it.

It's literally only a handful of yahoos who are frankly making their own side look bad.

Let us know when 10,000 of them show up with guns. Then we may have an intimidated administration.

[FredStembottom]

6. Caving in to the few gun-toters' demands may spawn the 10,000.

Because it makes gun violence seem incredibly effective.

Wave assault rifle at Prez and he caves a day later.

Wow! How does creaky, old representative democracy stand up to those results?

[cabluedem]

8. That's why we should have banned and confiscated assualt weapons in 1994. NT

[Statistical]

16. All but one (11 of 12?) gun toters had pistols. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. It would have stopped idiots from bringing PISTOLS to political rallies?

I don't believe you have thought your clever program all the way through...

[Bandit]

13. And Anthrax had nothing to do with Dems giving Bush* Cabal everything they wanted

Right!!!!!!!!

[JDPriestly]

11. This is an extremely important point. Thanks for the post.

If Obama gives in to these bullies, he will never get any respect.

I wrote him an e-mail on this. But, he probably gets millions of e-mails per day -- and reads only those his staff selects. He can't possibly read all of them.

[PLR_Writer]

12. Could you expand on the Roosevelt story?

...

[kelly1mm]

18. here is an exerpt and a link for more info

"On this day in 1912, a saloonkeeper named John Schrank shot former President Theodore Roosevelt while Roosevelt, as the presidential candidate of the Progressive Party, prepared to give a campaign speech in Milwaukee, Wis.

The force of Schrank’s bullet, aimed directly at Roosevelt's heart, was slowed by a steel eyeglass case and a copy of his campaign speech stuffed in the breast pocket of his heavy coat. After being arrested, Schrank gave as his motive for the shooting his belief that "any man looking for a third term ought to be shot."

Having suffered only a flesh wound from the attack, Roosevelt went on to deliver his scheduled speech with the bullet still lodged in his body."


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6332.html

[FredStembottom]

42. Thanks, kelly1mm for doing my work!

I work outdoors and am away from computers all day - so thanks for getting this done for me.:hi:

[Wednesdays]

14. K&R

:kick:

[benEzra]

19. What those guys were after was publicity and hand-wringing, and they are getting it.

They were not trying to intimidate so much as gain publicity and try to provoke ill-considered overreactions, and they are getting both.

They have also successfully swamped what OBAMA SAID at the town hall, because the MSM is so obsessed with the publicity seekers. Wake up, people; you are giving them exactly what they wanted.

[FredStembottom]

20. That sounds far too nuanced to me.

I think they are threatening violence if they don't get what they want (which is extra, super-dooper unfortnate since they don't know they want).
I don't see any evidence of anything else.:shrug:

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. They've proved once again that it's easy to buffalo a lot of Democratic pols

*Not* Fighting Barney Frank, I would point out to non-Masshole DUers.

They aim to provoke an overreaction, and so far they're succeeding.
They did a great job of distracting a lot of people,here at DU and elsewhere.

We've had people advocating assaulting the people with guns. We've had people saying the Second Amendment should be repealed. All from less than two dozen people.

[benEzra]

25. OK, straight from the interview on HuffPo:

That sounds far too nuanced to me.

I think they are threatening violence if they don't get what they want (which is extra, super-dooper unfortnate since they don't know they want).
I don't see any evidence of anything else.

OK, straight from the interview on HuffPo:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/right-wing-radio-host-sta_n_262559.html

Man Who Brought Assault Rifle To Obama Rally Was Part Of Radio Stunt

On Monday, a dozen people packing heat -- including at least one man carrying a semi-automatic assault rifle (sic) -- were spotted at a pro-health care rally next to the convention where President Obama was speaking. While it appeared at the time to be a random incident, similar to several other gun sightings at health care events, it's become clear today that this time the gun show was at least partially planned.

The man with the semi-automatic (referred to in interviews as "Chris," no last name) was spotted at the protest by CNN news cameras, in the middle of a Q&A. Today, his interviewer -- Ernest Hancock of conservative talk radio show Declare Your Independence With Ernest Hancock -- went on CNN and explained to host Rick Sanchez that he and Chris were actually in the middle of a radio broadcast. Hancock, also packing heat at the rally, had invited Chris to come down the protest with his rifle to be interviewed. The two men had known each other for two years, through their work for presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

During the segment on CNN, Rick Sanchez said, "the more we look into this, the more it appears that it was really planned." Hancock concurred: "Oh, it's more planned than you think." In addition to scheduling the interview, Hancock had also informed the local police force.

As the interview continued, Rick Sanchez loudly exclaimed, "This was a publicity stunt!"

"Oh absolutely," Hancock responded.

And the MSM (and a whole lot of DU'ers) are giving them exactly the reaction they were hoping for. The White House, however, has been a lot more savvy, and merely put out a statement saying that it doesn't oppose people carrying guns in accordance with state law; no hysteria, no hyperbole, and no ignorance. Would be nice to see more of that in the discussions here, IMO.

Thing is, the MSM/DLC hysteria over the rifle has completely drowned out Obama's message he gave in the forum that day, and a lot of DU'ers don't seem to see the problem with that.

[FredStembottom]

34. A distinction w/o a difference?

Broadcasting while threatening....... I don't see how that changes anything.:shrug: But you did win the argument here. There was nuance.
Very good. This helps my thinking on all of this.

[NaturalHigh]

22. Uh...right.

This is all about guns. If we just pass the public option, everyone will see that guns just don't work and probably throw them into the rivers. It will be all tangerine trees and marmalade skies.

[FredStembottom]

32. Read carefully

I am worrying about the Prez appearing to give in to threats of violence. Which is the worst thing a President can do.

The issue of gun control is not present.

[FredStembottom]

35. Replying to myself.......

Maybe you aren't raising the issue of gun control either.
I apoligize if I mis-understood.
But, yes, perservering in the face of the threats shows exactly that gun diplomacy does not work here.

[beevul]

26. Brandishing?

Cite please.

Of someone actually brandishing a weapon as you describe, where you describe.

[omega minimo]

28. Professor Plum with a Lamp in the Arboretum

"Brandishing" will do, considering displaying a weapon at a public event with or without the POTUS nearby, defying anyone to do to the brandisher what the Republicons would have done.................................................................................

[FredStembottom]

37. I see where you are going.....

You want 'brandishing" to mean only waving a gun around, yes?

No one did that (as far as I know).

But wearing guns in the open at a public debate, where democracy lives, is as shockingly anti-democratic as I can imagine.

It may be unprecedented for all I know.

Will the looney-fringe Righties begin to show up wearing those suicide bomb vests they wear in the Middle East?

And will that be OK so long as they are merely wearing them?

[beevul]

45. It has not a thing to do with what I want...

Well, other than using words properly.

Brandishing actually DOES mean something.


Saying that someone is "brandishing" a weapon, when they are simply carrying one in a holster, is like saying someone is drinking and driving, when they're only carrying an unopened 12 pack in the back seat.


My issue was only with the usage of the word "brandishing" when it clearly does not apply, because not a single person "brandished" a weapon.

Not one.

[FredStembottom]

46. Fair enough.

I reached for the word "brandishing" as a result of the shock I still feel about weapons being brought to a democratic forum. I can hardly convey how disturbing that is to me.

[omega minimo]

27. Obama Admin did not uphold the Rule of Law regarding Bushco crimes. Gun nuts already got the message

[FredStembottom]

39. Self-delete of my state gun-laws reply.

You were speaking of far larger issues than I understood.

[omega minimo]

44. Yes, I was trying to say word got out it's Wild West Time. Rule of Law, Constitution, not so much.

:hi:

[LostInAnomie]

29. It will without a doubt set a horrible precedent.

It doesn't even necessarily have to do with guns, but it will set the precedent and narrative that all Repukes and their thugs have to do is shout us down, look scary, and act intimidating and we will back down and cower in fear.

If Obama and the rest of the Dems don't pass something significant you can expect this to happen over and over and over.

[krispos42]

31. And this is why we must pass universal single-payer.

We must break them.

[FredStembottom]

41. That certainly would be the strongest message!

I'll dream of that happening, at least for the rest of today!:fistbump:

[FredStembottom]

43. Yes. Exactly. Thanks, LIAnomie

I only singled out guns because they currently represent the high-point in this extremely un-democratic exercise in intimidation by the Righties.

Who knows? Maybe bomb-carrying at rallies will be the next "high-point".

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Echo In Light]

36. Quack. Guns at THs has ZERO to do w/fucking the people over on HC "reform"

[FredStembottom]

38. You are probably right.

Caving in to the massive corruption in D.C. would be the real reason.

I just mean to point up that the threats of violence bring in a whole new aspect that makes it imperative that the pres carries out what he promised.

Or else the "Wear Guns and Win" formulation comes horribly alive.

[Echo In Light]

40. Agreed on that point. Everyone running about shooting one another won't accomplish anything