Guy shows up at Obama meeting with a gun

Manic Moran

norbert64 wrote: »

These are supposed to be healthcare townhalls after all.

What, I have to wait until a townhall is set up on firearms before protesting an administration's policy? What if none is ever scheduled? I don't recall many townhalls occuring before the 1986 or 1994 bans, when should one make an opinion heard?

Anywho, the truth is trickling out now about the gun guy in the pic. Things aren't looking good.

He's certainly a little on the Libertarian side, but nothing unlawful about that that I'm aware of.

NTM

Otacon

worldrepublic wrote: »

Either way this debate is becoming irrelevant to the matter of Obama's falling popularity. The unemployment rate is in double digits -that's a real reason for his lack of popularity! You can't keep blaming the conspiracy theorists for everything -it is nothing more than a strategic diversion from the hard issues.

When did this become a debate about Obama's popularity? This thread is titled "Guy shows up at Obama meeting with a gun", its about a f*cking moron who showed up to a meeting with his President with a gun. I don't know of any other civilised country where this would be accepted!

Overheal

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Just because people have the right to do something doesn't mean it has to be done.

I disagree somewhat, and I salute this man,

http://consumerist.com/5318667/walmart-enlists-help-of-local-police-officer-to-force-you-to-show-receipt

I explained my situation to [redacted], who didn't understand why I was wasting their time and my own for such a simple request. I let [redacted],, who claimed to be an 8 year veteran of the US Army, know that of all people he should understand the importance of standing up for one's rights regardless of how remedial or wasteful it might seem to do so.

For the longest time, and so many people still, they just have allowed Walmart to verify all receipts as you leave their stores. The problem is, if you disagree to the search, they do all sorts of illegal things, like kidnap your shopping cart. An exhaustive list can be found on these pages:

http://consumerist.com/tag/receipt-checking-controversy/

http://consumerist.com/search/walmart+receipt/bydate/?timerange=all



Furthermore, we're talking about something as central to American Foundations as our Right to Bear Arms. I applaud these guys exercising it.

Im not a crazy gun nazi - just a Constitutionalist

Manic Moran

its about a f*cking moron who showed up to a meeting with his President with a gun. I don't know of any other civilised country where this would be accepted!

I don't believe he was going to be meeting the President. If he were, he would generally not be permitted to be armed, so you can't count it as being accepted in the US either.

For the record, for the last ten minutes I've been bouncing around the website linked to 'in cache' by the littlegreenfootballs site, it's 'freedomsphoenix.com.' I've not noticed any odd or controversial advertisements, so far I've seen Hewlett Packard, an attorney's firm, online betting, a radio station, 'anti-war.com', a book, a financial planner, frankly, it seems pretty normal. On the front page it has an article about what they consider to be the best version of Linux. ("Mint", if you're curious).

Am I missing something?

NTM

bobbyjoe

Manic Moran wrote: »

I fully agree. Did he do anything in any way irresponsible with his rifle? Did he fail to abide by any of the fundamental rules of firearm safety? Did he point it at anyone he wasn't prepared to destroy or kill? Did he take the safety off? (Assuming the hammer was back). Did he place his finger on the trigger at any stage? Did he do anything whatsoever which was even remotely dangerous?



Like where? Not a flippant question, the decision on 'where a firearm is appropriate' varies from place to place. I mean, would you bring an assault rifle to a funfair filled with 12-16 year olds? No? It's a government-sponsored national event in Switzerland. (Guns and ferris wheels, interesting combination). Ever since the Black Panthers showed up in the Capitol Buildings in Sacramento with guns and scared the California Legislature, it's been 'inappropriate' (Actually, illegal) to bring them in. In New Hampshire, the mere suggestion that it is 'inappropriate' will (and has) result(ed) in a very strong pushback.

So here's a different question for you: Is it the presence of the firearm that concerns you, or the presence of a visible firearm that concerns you? 48 States in the Union permit people to carry a hidden firearm. If you've ever gone on holiday in the US, as long as you didn't say exclusively in Wisconsin or Illinois, there was a fair chance that the person sitting opposite you in McDonald's while all the kids tucked into their Happy Meals was packing a .45 Colt (or clone, very popular choice). Appropriate?

NTM

I'm no expert on guns so don't know if he was handling it or was it safe etc I assume it was and he knew what he was doing.

I think it is inappropriate because these townhall things are supposed to be places where people can meet their representatives talk argue protest etc. If guys like this start showing up armed it will intimidate others from expressing their opinions. You can't really argue with a guy with a gun.

Manic Moran

If guys like this start showing up armed it will intimidate others from expressing their opinions. You can't really argue with a guy with a gun

Sure you can. What's he going to do, shoot you with it? There are laws against that sort of thing.

And is there any indication that the people on the other side of the road decided that they should disperse? That they decided to be quiet and stop expressing support? Go home, perhaps?

Any photos or footage I've seen seems to indicate that there was no panic or dispersal, and that the supporters lines for the two sides remained in place.

NTM

28064212

worldrepublic wrote: »

This is an extreme example/scenario -but it is the only way to get the message across given the absurdity and restrictiveness of political-correctness:

If German citizens living c. the inter-war period had the right to bear arms, would the Nazis had succeeded in taking over their country, and then Europe?

The whole point of the right to bear arms is not protection from fellow citizens, but from corrupt government, no matter how politically correct it purports to be. Maybe, just maybe, the Jews would have been better off if they had the right to bear arms, along with every other German citizen. Remember its the people, not political ideologies, and not government, that forms the foundation of civilisation.

That's an insane analogy and requires a complete rewrite of history. You do realise Hitler was elected? If the citizens of Germany had been armed, then for every Jew that managed to successfully defend themselves, two would have been killed by their neighbours

Manic Moran

If the citizens of Germany had been armed, then for every Jew that managed to successfully defend themselves, two would have been killed by their neighbours

One-in-three odds of dying? I think I'd stay home that day instead of try to kill a jew.

NTM

bobbyjoe

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sure you can. What's he going to do, shoot you with it? There are laws against that sort of thing.

And is there any indication that the people on the other side of the road decided that they should disperse? That they decided to be quiet and stop expressing support? Go home, perhaps?

Any photos or footage I've seen seems to indicate that there was no panic or dispersal, and that the supporters lines for the two sides remained in place.

NTM

I wouldn't argue with a guy with a gun, a broken bottle or a baseball bat. Your chances of getting hurt are much higher than with an unarmed person.
Don't know if anyone was put off attending by him and neither do you. Still think its a stupid place to bring a gun.

LostinKildare

Oh, for the good ol' days (just two short years ago!) when just wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt in the president's general vicinity would get you arrested, handcuffed, and tossed into a police van!

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2007/08/20/couple-win-80000-for-bush-t-shirt-arrest/

worldrepublic

Otacon wrote: »

When did this become a debate about Obama's popularity? This thread is titled "Guy shows up at Obama meeting with a gun", its about a f*cking moron who showed up to a meeting with his President with a gun. I don't know of any other civilised country where this would be accepted!

I'll let you in on a little secret: there are NO civilised countries. When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation, he replied: I think it would be a good idea!

Anyway, attacks on the personality of this one man cannot form a basis for properly addressing the wider societal and legal issues. The fact is he is a law abiding citizen. I also note that representatives of Acorn (group promoting the policies of Obama) recently attacked an African-American man who was peacefully protesting against the healthcare policy. The Acorn members broke the law, but the police did nothing? There is a real dispute here: ordinary folks are not happy with basically losing everything -their pensions, their homes, their jobs.... and so they protest (freedom of speech/right of assembly allows for this). The far right would love to take credit for this, but, in fact, the protests are about very down to earth concerns, coming from average people all over the USA.

Maybe Obama should compromise on his policy? Remember Poll tax in the UK? The government has to rescind it in the end. Obama will have a much longer stay in office if he is reasonable, and, importantly, stops shirking off the growing public protest.

bobbyjoe

worldrepublic wrote: »

I'll let you in on a little secret: there are NO civilised countries. When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation, he replied: I think it would be a good idea!

Anyway, attacks on the personality of this one man cannot form a basis for properly addressing the wider societal and legal issues. The fact is he is a law abiding citizen. I also note that representatives of Acorn (group promoting the policies of Obama) recently attacked an African-American man who was peacefully protesting against the healthcare policy. The Acorn members broke the law, but the police did nothing? There is a real dispute here: ordinary folks are not happy with basically losing everything -their pensions, their homes, their jobs.... and so they protest (freedom of speech/right of assembly allows for this). The far right would love to take credit for this, but, in fact, the protests are about very down to earth concerns, coming from average people all over the USA.

Maybe Obama should compromise on his policy? Remember Poll tax in the UK? The government has to rescind it in the end. Obama will have a much longer stay in office if he is reasonable, and, importantly, stops shirking off the growing public protest.

What about the millions of people who want a public option, those who voted for Obama? Seems like a small vocal minority backed by vested interests can overthrow a popular proposal by bullying and threats.

tlev

worldrepublic wrote: »

I'll let you in on a little secret: there are NO civilised countries. When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation, he replied: I think it would be a good idea!

Anyway, attacks on the personality of this one man cannot form a basis for properly addressing the wider societal and legal issues. The fact is he is a law abiding citizen. I also note that representatives of Acorn (group promoting the policies of Obama) recently attacked an African-American man who was peacefully protesting against the healthcare policy. The Acorn members broke the law, but the police did nothing? There is a real dispute here: ordinary folks are not happy with basically losing everything -their pensions, their homes, their jobs.... and so they protest (freedom of speech/right of assembly allows for this). The far right would love to take credit for this, but, in fact, the protests are about very down to earth concerns, coming from average people all over the USA.

Maybe Obama should compromise on his policy? Remember Poll tax in the UK? The government has to rescind it in the end. Obama will have a much longer stay in office if he is reasonable, and, importantly, stops shirking off the growing public protest.

Your posts have changed in tone quite quickly.....

norbert64

Thread about the gun guy here. Apparently he had no ammo in the steyr, but his handgun was indeed loaded.
http://www.arizonashooting.com/v3/viewtopic.php?p=595650

worldrepublic

bobbyjoe wrote: »

What about the millions of people who want a public option, those who voted for Obama? Seems like a small vocal minority backed by vested interests can overthrow a popular proposal by bullying and threats.

They are making anti-Obama t-shirts now. Retailing at $9.99 with a free "where's your birth certificate Obama?" bumper sticker. Bush didn't seem to care about unrest (did anyone bother to tell him?). God will you ever forget the footage of him holding the children's story book upside down, when the SS guy comes in to tell him "America is under attack, Sir!" Well, at least Obama is better at reading the tele-prompter!

worldrepublic

The media are now doing a u-turn and admitting that the protesters are just "ordinary folk" (versus right-wing nuts etc. etc.):

The disapproval ratings are pretty scary even Bush did better than this.

And this Telegraph article calls Obama "President Pantywaist":

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100006701/president-pantywaist-in-retreat-barack-obama-hoists-the-white-flag-over-stalinist-health-care-proposals/

Overheal

I stopped at 15 seconds. Heres why.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-17-2009/poll-bearers

jank

28064212 wrote: »

That's an insane analogy and requires a complete rewrite of history. You do realise Hitler was elected? If the citizens of Germany had been armed, then for every Jew that managed to successfully defend themselves, two would have been killed by their neighbours

Also if he knew his history he would realize that under the treaty of Versailles, France and Great Britain would have never had stood for it. Christ man, at least know your history!

Manic Moran

bobbyjoe wrote: »

What about the millions of people who want a public option, those who voted for Obama? Seems like a small vocal minority backed by vested interests can overthrow a popular proposal by bullying and threats.

Polls are showing that it's not a vocal minority, but a quite sizeable portion of the populace. Just because people voted for Obama does not mean that they necessarily approve of all his policies, it just means they preferred more of his policies to those of his opponent. Polls are currently showing about a third approving of the Obama plan, and almost half disapproving. Little wonder that he's having trouble getting the votes in Congress to pass the thing.

Your chances of getting hurt are much higher than with an unarmed person.

I beg to differ. People carrying guns around tend to be rather careful. People not carrying guns around occasionally seem a little less reluctant to beat other people up using good, old-fashioned fists. I'd be more intimidated by an unarmed fullback than an armed 'average guy', especially at a protest where police are around. The reprecrussions for a fisticuffs tend to be a little less than those for shooting someone.

Speaking of appropriate places to carry a rifle, check out the 'ice cream man' on the table.


I agree entirely!

NTM

bobbyjoe

Manic Moran wrote: »

Polls are showing that it's not a vocal minority, but a quite sizeable portion of the populace. Just because people voted for Obama does not mean that they necessarily approve of all his policies, it just means they preferred more of his policies to those of his opponent. Polls are currently showing about a third approving of the Obama plan, and almost half disapproving. Little wonder that he's having trouble getting the votes in Congress to pass the thing.



I beg to differ. People carrying guns around tend to be rather careful. People not carrying guns around occasionally seem a little less reluctant to beat other people up using good, old-fashioned fists. I'd be more intimidated by an unarmed fullback than an armed 'average guy', especially at a protest where police are around. The reprecrussions for a fisticuffs tend to be a little less than those for shooting someone.

Speaking of appropriate places to carry a rifle, check out the 'ice cream man' on the table.


I agree entirely!

NTM

So how often do you have gun rampages over there? Seems like once a month or so. A guy shot women in a gym cos he can't find a woman, kids shoot up schools and colleges cos their bullied. Not a great leap of the imagination for someone to attack Obama or his supporters because they think he is a tyrant or Marxist or whatever.
Millions marched against the war in Iraq and their views were dismissed.

Manic Moran

bobbyjoe wrote: »

So how often do you have gun rampages over there? Seems like once a month or so. A guy shot women in a gym cos he can't find a woman, kids shoot up schools and colleges cos their bullied. Not a great leap of the imagination for someone to attack Obama or his supporters because they think he is a tyrant or Marxist or whatever.

Which then returns us to our earlier question of if your problem is with the firearms, or the display of firearms. You seem to be vaccilating between the two. If someone decides he's going to go shooting protestors, he can either openly carry a weapon, or carry it concealed until he decides to use it. Yet thus far there have been few, if any (my knowledge is not all-encompassing, so I won't say 'definitely none') instances of a rampaging shooting at a political event because someone didn't like the other side's policies, even though the carriage of concealed firearms is perfectly legal and in no way unusual in the vast majority of the country.

Millions marched against the war in Iraq and their views were dismissed.

So they should have just stayed at home?

NTM

bobbyjoe

Manic Moran wrote: »

Which then returns us to our earlier question of if your problem is with the firearms, or the display of firearms. You seem to be vaccilating between the two. If someone decides he's going to go shooting protestors, he can either openly carry a weapon, or carry it concealed until he decides to use it. Yet thus far there have been few, if any (my knowledge is not all-encompassing, so I won't say 'definitely none') instances of a rampaging shooting at a political event because someone didn't like the other side's policies, even though the carriage of concealed firearms is perfectly legal and in no way unusual in the vast majority of the country.



So they should have just stayed at home?

NTM

Reagan, JFK, MLK, Harvey Milk etc someone even took a shot at Gerald Ford. I suppose they had their guns hidden, so a guy open carrying would never do it??? Don't think we should have to wait and see.
I've no strong feeling towards Americans and their guns just saying that a heated political event is not the place to bring them. Going there talking about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, pictures of Obama as Hitler etc. They might as well be holding a big sign saying I want to kill the President and/or his supporters.
They probably have every right to do this, fine but others have the right to call them assholes for doing so.

Manic Moran

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Reagan, JFK, MLK, Harvey Milk etc someone even took a shot at Gerald Ford.

Those were not exactly randomly targeted personages at political events, and the various security organisations are focused around protecting the President, so it evens out.

NTM

28064212

worldrepublic wrote: »

The disapproval ratings are pretty scary even Bush did better than this.

And this Telegraph article calls Obama "President Pantywaist":

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100006701/president-pantywaist-in-retreat-barack-obama-hoists-the-white-flag-over-stalinist-health-care-proposals/

Bush had a higher approval rating after he inherited one of the most successful economic boom times ever, as well as the fact that, for the first time since Carter, the public debt (as a % of GDP) actually fell under Clinton. Then 9/11 happened, so Bush's approval rating soared. By the time people actually got to see what he was like as a president, his approval rating actually dropped below his disapproval rating and just kept dropping, going as low as 19% (the lowest ever recorded), while his disapproval went as high as 69%.

Obama, on the other hand, has inherited an absolute economic mess, which will likely take at least his first full term to recover from. The fact that he's still holding around the 50-50 mark is pretty acceptable.

And an opinion piece, in the Telegraph of all places? Seriously?

worldrepublic

For how long will Obama "hard-line" supporters get away with blaming everything on either Georgie boy, or the "conspiracy nuts"? Journalists are now attacking and laughing at Obama because they absolutely have to -he is a dangerous radical and he has forgotten that he is in office to serve the people. If he is very good going forward he might be allowed to stay in office -but in any event it will be a one term presidency. I know it is hard for his "hard-line" supporters, but at some point they will have to take their heads out of the sand!

worldrepublic

And another thing: Obama is losing support from the left as well. Why? Because he is breaking promises. Recently he held a Gay Pride reception at the White House, and told the GLBT community that they would have to be second class citizens for even longer, totally u-turning on his promises of equality for all. A friend of mine was at the reception and described Obama's actions as "horrible". So other that running up a huge debt, and dismissing protestors as "nuts", what has he actually achieved?? I'm afraid that anyone who is still supporting him is doing so out of sheer naïveté -he's a con man, and the fancy words and hand gestures won't work any more!

28064212

worldrepublic wrote: »

For how long will Obama "hard-line" supporters get away with blaming everything on either Georgie boy, or the "conspiracy nuts"?

Who's blaming everything on Bush? You said Obama's approval ratings were worse than Bush's, I pointed out why that was true at the equialent points in their presidencies. Are you seriously going to claim that Obama came into office at a good time to be president?

worldrepublic wrote: »

Journalists are now attacking and laughing at Obama because they absolutely have to -he is a dangerous radical

Only in America could a politician as close to the centre as Obama is be called a dangerous radical. What a ridiculous thing to say

worldrepublic wrote: »

in any event it will be a one term presidency

That's just hilarious. At the moment, the republican front-runner is the woman who was more or less single-handedly for derailing the McCain bid. If the GOP are insane enough to put her up against Obama, she'll get destroyed. Even if they don't use her, there's still a huge amount to do to overturn the advantage the Democrats have

worldrepublic

So you really imagine that Obama will get a second term?

28064212

worldrepublic wrote: »

And another thing: Obama is losing support from the left as well. Why? Because he is breaking promises. Recently he held a Gay Pride reception at the White House, and told the GLBT community that they would have to be second class citizens for even longer, totally u-turning on his promises of equality for all. A friend of mine was at the reception and described Obama's actions as "horrible". So other that running up a huge debt, and dismissing protestors as "nuts", what has he actually achieved?? I'm afraid that anyone who is still supporting him is doing so out of sheer naïveté -he's a con man, and the fancy words and hand gestures won't work any more!

Was it anything along this quote, issued from Obama in a statement:

"I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law."
Source

Sounds fairly positive to me. And I would think it's fairly clear that it would have been virtually impossible to avoid running up a huge public debt in the circumstances. Is there a first-world country anywhere that hasn't done so in the past year? But since you ask what he's done, I think his hands have been fairly full what with the global recession and all, so most of it has been along the lines of the economic stimulus package, preventing the car companies from going completely under, the banning of torture at Guantanamo, appointed the first hispanic Supreme Court Justice... There's some of the things he's done, I'm sure you can find some of the rest

worldrepublic wrote: »

So you really imagine that Obama will get a second term?

Given that even now, at what seems like it could be the nadir of the recession in America, Gallup still has his approval rating at 52% to his disapproval of 42%, and the front-runner for the GOP is, at best, a comical figure then yes, I think so. 4 years is a long time in politics, and I have no idea what's coming, but there's a strong possibility that, by the time 2012 rolls around, the US will be back in what will be considered an economic boom, it's hard to see the republicans managing not to be wiped out at the next election

worldrepublic

The polls are veritably low, on any line of comparison. No, I'm afraid the Obama "halo" is gone and will never return to the public consciousness. "sounds positive" is just not going to cut it. He will need to create jobs, period. The idea that we will all be enjoying a boom within the next 3 years is pure fiction. This is not a recession, this is not a depression, it is a global breakdown crisis. Obama's worst policy is that big corporations are "too big to fail". He is flying in the face of the fundamentals of capitalism and a free market, and he is the worst offender. That is why the Telegraph (who previously supported Obama) now have a Journalist calling him "President Pantywaist".