Which group of armed men should we fear?

[Little-Acorn]

The author makes several good points. Chief among them is that the media's near-hysteria over people doing legal things like carrying guns, stand in sharp (but sad) contrast to their indifference to people doing highly illegal things (like passing unconstitutional laws, with the power of the police, FBI, etc. to back them up).

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/59169092.html

Which group of armed men should we fear?

by Vin Suprynowicz
Sep. 13, 2009

Touring the country to peddle his collectivist schemes, President Barack Obama made stops in New Hampshire and then in Phoenix during the month of August.

At several of these events, a handful of those who gathered outside the halls to protest wore firearms. No one got arrested, since no one brandished their firearms in a threatening manner. They just wore them, safely slung or holstered, which is still perfectly legal in both New Hampshire and Arizona.

The fact that many Americans need to be re-acclimatized to the normalcy of an armed citizenry was quickly revealed by the nearly hysterical rantings from the Left after the TV cameras picked up fleeting images of these legally owned and carried civilian firearms.

Cartoonist Ted Rall writes a syndicated column. Mr. Rall's Aug. 27 column says: "Two weeks ago, a right-wing man protested outside the president's health care meeting in New Hampshire wearing a gun strapped to his leg. ... A week later, a dozen men appeared outside Obama's appearance in Phoenix brandishing loaded guns ... (including) one, who carried an AR-15 military-style automatic rifle. ...

"Make no mistake: guns don't have anything to do with health care. This is a revival of Klannism. A black man is president, and the good ol' boys don't like it. That's what this is about: putting him in his place. Which, if they or someone they inspire has their way, will be six feet under. ...

"God. The smirks those turds wear!" Mr. Rall went on. "Run a Google Image search on 'Klansmen' or 'lynching.' Same ones."

Interesting. I chatted with 28-year-old Chris Broughton, a Phoenix machinist, the man who wore the aforementioned AR-15 slung across his back outside President Obama's Aug. 17 appearance at the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, there. (Needless to say, it's the kind that fires one shot each time you pull the trigger -- not an "automatic.")

Is Chris Broughton one of the "same ones" you'll find if you "run a Google Image search on 'Klansmen' or 'lynching,' " as Mr. Rall suggests? Only if you look at the guy hanging in the tree. Chris Broughton is black.

"MSNBC actually went so far as to edit the video so they (viewers) could only see the rifle," he told me. "You couldn't see if I was black or white, and then they used that video when they were talking about white supremacists and Nazis, talking about people hating a black president. They purposely cropped the picture so they couldn't see I was black as they used it over this report about dangerous racists and white supremacists. In the original video, my whole body was visible in the video the whole time. ...

"There's one point I've been meaning to make with all these different reporters," Chris said. "People are up in arms about me doing something perfectly legal at a time when our president is traveling the country trying to sell an unconstitutional health reform. ...

"Aren't the hospitals required to treat anyone in the emergency rooms? If they weren't required to treat people, then the costs wouldn't be spread to us, right? If you think about it, we already have universal health care. People are whining because health care costs are out of control. That's because the producers are paying for those who aren't producing. Universal health care will just be more of the same. If more people get free care and the rest of us pay for it, then prices are going to go up, not down. Anyone can figure that out."

I guess to some that's scary, racist talk.

Phoenix talk radio host Ernie Hancock, who was also armed that day, tells me that a group of marching, chanting guys carrying bullhorns and wearing SEIU T-shirts approached the corner where he and Chris were standing outside the Phoenix convention center on Aug. 17.

"They were telling people to get out of their way," Ernie says. "They acted like that was their street corner, like they had it reserved so they could stand there where the TV cameras could see them. But as soon as they saw a bunch of guys already standing on that corner, wearing guns, they got really quiet. One of the cops came up to me later and said, 'You guys did the right thing.' "

Barack Obama has thousands of guys -- many with real machine guns -- to help him promote his vision for a socialist America. But one guy with a semi-automatic, safely slung, standing outside on the sidewalk answering people's questions -- that's scary?

 

[PLC1]

The author makes several good points. Chief among them is that the media's near-hysteria over people doing legal things like carrying guns, stand in sharp (but sad) contrast to their indifference to people doing highly illegal things (like passing unconstitutional laws, with the power of the police, FBI, etc. to back them up).

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/59169092.html

Which group of armed men should we fear?

by Vin Suprynowicz
Sep. 13, 2009

Touring the country to peddle his collectivist schemes, President Barack Obama made stops in New Hampshire and then in Phoenix during the month of August.

At several of these events, a handful of those who gathered outside the halls to protest wore firearms. No one got arrested, since no one brandished their firearms in a threatening manner. They just wore them, safely slung or holstered, which is still perfectly legal in both New Hampshire and Arizona.

The fact that many Americans need to be re-acclimatized to the normalcy of an armed citizenry was quickly revealed by the nearly hysterical rantings from the Left after the TV cameras picked up fleeting images of these legally owned and carried civilian firearms.

Cartoonist Ted Rall writes a syndicated column. Mr. Rall's Aug. 27 column says: "Two weeks ago, a right-wing man protested outside the president's health care meeting in New Hampshire wearing a gun strapped to his leg. ... A week later, a dozen men appeared outside Obama's appearance in Phoenix brandishing loaded guns ... (including) one, who carried an AR-15 military-style automatic rifle. ...

"Make no mistake: guns don't have anything to do with health care. This is a revival of Klannism. A black man is president, and the good ol' boys don't like it. That's what this is about: putting him in his place. Which, if they or someone they inspire has their way, will be six feet under. ...

"God. The smirks those turds wear!" Mr. Rall went on. "Run a Google Image search on 'Klansmen' or 'lynching.' Same ones."

Interesting. I chatted with 28-year-old Chris Broughton, a Phoenix machinist, the man who wore the aforementioned AR-15 slung across his back outside President Obama's Aug. 17 appearance at the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, there. (Needless to say, it's the kind that fires one shot each time you pull the trigger -- not an "automatic.")

Is Chris Broughton one of the "same ones" you'll find if you "run a Google Image search on 'Klansmen' or 'lynching,' " as Mr. Rall suggests? Only if you look at the guy hanging in the tree. Chris Broughton is black.

"MSNBC actually went so far as to edit the video so they (viewers) could only see the rifle," he told me. "You couldn't see if I was black or white, and then they used that video when they were talking about white supremacists and Nazis, talking about people hating a black president. They purposely cropped the picture so they couldn't see I was black as they used it over this report about dangerous racists and white supremacists. In the original video, my whole body was visible in the video the whole time. ...

"There's one point I've been meaning to make with all these different reporters," Chris said. "People are up in arms about me doing something perfectly legal at a time when our president is traveling the country trying to sell an unconstitutional health reform. ...

"Aren't the hospitals required to treat anyone in the emergency rooms? If they weren't required to treat people, then the costs wouldn't be spread to us, right? If you think about it, we already have universal health care. People are whining because health care costs are out of control. That's because the producers are paying for those who aren't producing. Universal health care will just be more of the same. If more people get free care and the rest of us pay for it, then prices are going to go up, not down. Anyone can figure that out."

I guess to some that's scary, racist talk.

Phoenix talk radio host Ernie Hancock, who was also armed that day, tells me that a group of marching, chanting guys carrying bullhorns and wearing SEIU T-shirts approached the corner where he and Chris were standing outside the Phoenix convention center on Aug. 17.

"They were telling people to get out of their way," Ernie says. "They acted like that was their street corner, like they had it reserved so they could stand there where the TV cameras could see them. But as soon as they saw a bunch of guys already standing on that corner, wearing guns, they got really quiet. One of the cops came up to me later and said, 'You guys did the right thing.' "

Barack Obama has thousands of guys -- many with real machine guns -- to help him promote his vision for a socialist America. But one guy with a semi-automatic, safely slung, standing outside on the sidewalk answering people's questions -- that's scary?

So, Obama is going to send the military in to force America to be Socialist? Yes, indeed, that is a nutter position, no doubt about it.

Nutcases with guns are scary. They may be protected by someone's interpretation of the second amendment, but they are scary nonetheless.

Sane people with weapons are not scary, but sane people seldom find it necessary to brandish them in public.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So, Obama is going to send the military in to force America to be Socialist? Yes, indeed, that is a nutter position, no doubt about it.

Nutcases with guns are scary. They may be protected by someone's interpretation of the second amendment, but they are scary nonetheless.

Has anyone ever seen cartoonist Ted Rall and PLC1 in the same room at the same time?

Hmmm........

 

[Mr. Shaman]

 

[Greco]

It must really be a sad life to be a wingnut. They have so many fears. It would be a very unpleasant existance to cower and tremble from all these fears. They rush to acquire guns, to acquire permits to carry them with them everywhere they go, then they suddenly realize they're very afraid someone might want to take their guns away from them.

Being afraid all the time of things that go bump in the night sure would be a lousy way to live, but I suppose their fears are part of the glue that bind them together. You can always spot them, their knees knocking together and trembling hands give them away.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It must really be a sad life to be a wingnut. They have so many fears. It would be a very unpleasant existance to cower and tremble from all these fears. They rush to acquire guns, to acquire permits to carry them with them everywhere they go, then they suddenly realize they're very afraid someone might want to take their guns away from them.

Being afraid all the time of things that go bump in the night sure would be a lousy way to live, but I suppose their fears are part of the glue that bind them together. You can always spot them, their knees knocking together and trembling hands give them away.

It is sad realy, the same ones who act all gun ho about crap...yet need Depends if they have to go out in the cruel scary world without there guns...Fearing the the NWO is out to get them, and that any person they see just may be a liberal out to get them...

 

[TheFranklinParty]

So, Obama is going to send the military in to force America to be Socialist? Yes, indeed, that is a nutter position, no doubt about it.

Nutcases with guns are scary. They may be protected by someone's interpretation of the second amendment, but they are scary nonetheless.

Sane people with weapons are not scary, but sane people seldom find it necessary to brandish them in public.

I've already said my piece several times on the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry, so I'll refrain from repeating myself. The point I would like to make is the danger in having a military presence of any sort that has boots on American soil. This is something our founding fathers warned us against and clearly put into the Constitution to protect us. There are too many wrong turns in history to allow this to happen.

Let's say for argument sake that this comes to pass. Our current administration uses this new power appropriately, but the next administration is a cross between Bush, LBJ, and Teddy Roosevelt - with a little Mussolini mixed in. Now how do you feel about a Federal military presence in your neighborhood?

It's not always about now. We have to look into the future and think ahead when allowing such legislation to amending our constitution.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It must really be a sad life to be a wingnut. They have so many fears. It would be a very unpleasant existance to cower and tremble from all these fears.

Being afraid all the time of things that go bump in the night sure would be a lousy way to live, but I suppose their fears are part of the glue that bind them together. You can always spot them, their knees knocking together and trembling hands give them away.

And their tendency to make laws against inanimate objects, laws disarming the very law-abiding people who could have protected them, laws forcing those people to turn over more and more of their resources to the trembling ones, etc.

I agree. Their fear and trembling, is a lousy way to live. Look at the way they burst out, sliming the confident among us as "wingnuts", cowering and trembling etc.

---------------------

http://catb.org/~esr/guns/sheep.html

The Parable of the Sheep
by Charles Riggs

Not so long ago and in a pasture too uncomfortably close to here, a flock of sheep lived and grazed. They were protected by a dog, who answered to the master, but despite his best efforts from time to time a nearby pack of wolves would prey upon the flock.

One day a group of sheep, more bold than the rest, met to discuss their dilemma. "Our dog is good, and vigilant, but he is one dog and the wolves are many. The wolves he catches are not always killed, and the master judges and releases many to prey again upon us, for no reason we can understand. What can we do? We are sheep, but we do not wish to be food, too!"

One sheep spoke up, saying "It is his teeth and claws that make the wolf so terrible to us. It is his nature to prey, and he would find any way to do it, but it is the tools he wields that make it possible. If we had such teeth, we could fight back, and stop this savagery." The other sheep clamored in agreement, and they went together to the old bones of the dead wolves heaped in the corner of the pasture, and gathered fang and claw and made them into weapons.

That night, when the wolves came, the newly armed sheep sprang up with their weapons and struck at them and cried "Begone! We are not food!" and drove off the wolves, who were astonished. When did sheep become so bold and so dangerous to wolves? When did sheep grow teeth? It was unthinkable!

The next day, flush with victory and waving their weapons, they approached the flock to pronounce their discovery. But as they drew nigh, the flock huddled together and cried out "Baaaaaaaadddd! Baaaaaddd things! You have bad things! We are afraid! You are not sheep!"

The brave sheep stopped, amazed. "But we are your brethren!" they cried, "We are still sheep, but we do not wish to be food. See, our new teeth and claws protect us and have saved us from slaughter. They do not make us into wolves, they make us equal to the wolves, and safe from their viciousness!"

"Baaaaaaaddd!", cried the flock,"the things are bad and will pervert you, and we fear them. You cannot bring them into the flock. They scare us!". So the armed sheep resolved to conceal their weapons, for although they had no desire to panic the flock, they wished to remain in the fold. But they would not return to those nights of terror, waiting for the wolves to come.

In time, the wolves attacked less often and sought easier prey, for they had no stomach for fighting sheep who possessed tooth and claw even as they did. Not knowing which sheep had fangs and which did not, they came to leave sheep out of their diet almost completely except for the occasional raid, from which more than one wolf did not return. Then came the day when, as the flock grazed beside the stream, one sheep's weapon slipped from the folds of her fleece, and the flock cried out in terror again, "Baaaaaaddddd! You still possess these evil things! We must ban you from our presence!".

And so they did. The great chief sheep and his court and council, encouraged by the words of their moneylenders and advisors, placed signs and totems at the edges of the pasture forbidding the presence of hidden weapons there. The armed sheep protested before the council, saying "It is our pasture, too, and we have never harmed you! When can you say we have caused you hurt? It is the wolves, not we, who prey upon you. We are still sheep, but we are not food!". But the flock would not hear, and drowned them out with cries of "Baaaaaaddd! We will not hear your clever words! You and your things are evil and will harm us!".

Saddened by this rejection, the armed sheep moved off and spent their days on the edges of the flock, trying from time to time to speak with their brethren to convince them of the wisdom of having such teeth, but meeting with little success. They found it hard to talk to those who, upon hearing their words, would roll back their eyes and flee, crying "Baaaaddd! Bad things!".

That night, the wolves happened upon the sheep's totems and signs, and said, "Truly, these sheep are fools! They have told us they have no teeth! Brothers, let us feed!". And they set upon the flock, and horrible was the carnage in the midst of the fold. The dog fought like a demon, and often seemed to be in two places at once, but even he could not halt the slaughter. It was only when the other sheep arrived with their weapons that the wolves fled, vowing to each other to remain on the edge of the pasture and wait for the next time they could prey, for if the sheep were so foolish once, they would be so again. This they did, and do still.

In the morning, the armed sheep spoke to the flock, and said, "See? If the wolves know you have no teeth, they will fall upon you. Why be prey? To be a sheep does not mean to be food for wolves!". But the flock cried out, more feebly for their voices were fewer, though with no less terror, "Baaaaaaaadddd! These things are bad! If they were banished, the wolves would not harm us! Baaaaaaaddd!". The other sheep could only hang their heads and sigh. The flock had forgotten that even they possessed teeth; how else could they graze the grasses of the pasture? It was only those who preyed, like the wolves and jackals, who turned their teeth to evil ends. If you pulled their own fangs those beasts would take another's teeth and claws, perhaps even the broad flat teeth of sheep, and turn them to evil purposes.

The bold sheep knew that the fangs and claws they possessed had not changed them. They still grazed like other sheep, and raised their lambs in the spring, and greeted their friend the dog as he walked among them. But they could not quell the terror of the flock, which rose in them like some ancient dark smoky spirit and could not be damped by reason, nor dispelled by the light of day.

So they resolved to retain their weapons, but to conceal them from the flock; to endure their fear and loathing, and even to protect their brethren if the need arose, until the day the flock learned to understand that as long as there were wolves in the night, sheep would need teeth to repel them.

They would still be sheep, but they would not be food!

 

[Greco]

Now that's a mega dose of moonbattery logic. In your twisted logic fearful people don't feel the need to arm themselves. Nope, it's only the brave fearless people that feel they need a loaded gun with them every time they leave the safety of their homes.

Sounds just like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

If I ever found myself in peril, I'll defend myself. I have grave reservations about your ability to actually confront danger and prevail.

 

[PLC1]

I've already said my piece several times on the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry, so I'll refrain from repeating myself. The point I would like to make is the danger in having a military presence of any sort that has boots on American soil. This is something our founding fathers warned us against and clearly put into the Constitution to protect us. There are too many wrong turns in history to allow this to happen.

Let's say for argument sake that this comes to pass. Our current administration uses this new power appropriately, but the next administration is a cross between Bush, LBJ, and Teddy Roosevelt - with a little Mussolini mixed in. Now how do you feel about a Federal military presence in your neighborhood?

It's not always about now. We have to look into the future and think ahead when allowing such legislation to amending our constitution.

Why bother to quote my post, then not respond to it?

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Why bother to quote my post, then not respond to it?

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post...I thought you were suggesting that the potential for a federal military presence on domestic soil was a crazy fear.

 

[PLC1]

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post...I thought you were suggesting that the potential for a federal military presence on domestic soil was a crazy fear.

The crazy fear was of Obama sending in the military to force us into socialism.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

The crazy fear was of Obama sending in the military to force us into socialism.

Then, unless I'm still confused, my point stands. It isn't necessarily this leader we have to worry about, but all future leaders. This is one of the things our founding fathers did so well. They put protection in place to prevent any one person from having too much power. Laws that allow boots on our soil , Cyber "Kill Switches", or control over power production is a dangerous thing to put in one person's hands. In difficult times, we have been know to elect some real bone heads...Jimmy Carter comes to mind. What if we react and elect someone who's aggressive instead of ultra passive like Jimmy was? Once they have the power they don't give it up easily.

 

[PLC1]

Then, unless I'm still confused, my point stands. It isn't necessarily this leader we have to worry about, but all future leaders. This is one of the things our founding fathers did so well. They put protection in place to prevent any one person from having too much power. Laws that allow boots on our soil , Cyber "Kill Switches", or control over power production is a dangerous thing to put in one person's hands. In difficult times, we have been know to elect some real bone heads...Jimmy Carter comes to mind. What if we react and elect someone who's aggressive instead of ultra passive like Jimmy was? Once they have the power they don't give it up easily.

I'm afraid you are still confused.

The way freedom is lost is not our own military coming to force us into socialism. I'm not sure you know what socialism really is, in fact. It is not the opposite of freedom, but an alternative to capitalism. Socialism is not a viable option, as it has been shown over and over again that it simply doesn't work very well, but it is not bondage.

As for the "cyber kill switches", that must be a reference to the choice that the electric company has given some of us to get cheaper power if we allow them (not the government) to adjust our thermostat by remote control if there is a danger of a blackout. That's the only cyber kill switch I can think of right off hand. Maybe there is something I've missed.

It is in the lack of participation in our government by the people that we need to fear. Freedom is not lost all at once, nor will it be taken by force of arms. If it is lost at all, it will be incrementally, as people either don't know what their government is doing, or don't do anything to influence it. Some freedoms have already been lost due to such as the Patriot Act and asset forfeiture laws, and no one seems to care much.

So, yes, the idea that Obama is going to send in the military to force us into socialism and take away our liberty is a tinfoil hat idea, pure and simple.

 

[Dr.Who]

So, Obama is going to send the military in to force America to be Socialist? Yes, indeed, that is a nutter position, no doubt about it.

Nutcases with guns are scary. They may be protected by someone's interpretation of the second amendment, but they are scary nonetheless.

Sane people with weapons are not scary, but sane people seldom find it necessary to brandish them in public.

Yes our Pres does have people with guns to enforce his agenda.

After he raises taxes real high just try not paying them and then wait to see how long before the Sheriff with real guns evicts you from your former home or carts you off to jail where others with real guns will keep you locked up.