Decius wrote:
2. Its cool to bring your assault rifle to Presidential speaking events. Everyone is going to be doing it.

...

On the later point, intentionally creating a nation wide "bring you assault rifle to protest rallies" fad is the most blatantly irresponsible thing that I have ever seen the national media do. If you don't want to encourage people to do something, you shouldn't put a picture of someone doing it above the fold in your nationally distributed media outlet, you idiots! This is all going no where good just about as fast as it can.

Haven't been paying attention to any news lately. What's the deal with this? People are actually bringing guns to Presidential speeches? The Secret Service allows this?

Hijexx wrote:

Decius wrote:
2. Its cool to bring your assault rifle to Presidential speaking events. Everyone is going to be doing it.

...

On the later point, intentionally creating a nation wide "bring you assault rifle to protest rallies" fad is the most blatantly irresponsible thing that I have ever seen the national media do. If you don't want to encourage people to do something, you shouldn't put a picture of someone doing it above the fold in your nationally distributed media outlet, you idiots! This is all going no where good just about as fast as it can.

Haven't been paying attention to any news lately. What's the deal with this? People are actually bringing guns to Presidential speeches? The Secret Service allows this?

Basically, someone brought their assault rifle to an anti-obama rally outside of one of the healthcare town hall meetings and the media, instead of just ignoring him, has plastered pictures of him all over the place, thus turning it into a fad.

Generally speaking the Secret Service doesn't have a choice - these people are outside the security perimeter for the event in states that allow open carry.

Decius wrote:

Hijexx wrote:

Decius wrote:
2. Its cool to bring your assault rifle to Presidential speaking events. Everyone is going to be doing it.

...

On the later point, intentionally creating a nation wide "bring you assault rifle to protest rallies" fad is the most blatantly irresponsible thing that I have ever seen the national media do. If you don't want to encourage people to do something, you shouldn't put a picture of someone doing it above the fold in your nationally distributed media outlet, you idiots! This is all going no where good just about as fast as it can.

Haven't been paying attention to any news lately. What's the deal with this? People are actually bringing guns to Presidential speeches? The Secret Service allows this?

Basically, someone brought their assault rifle to an anti-obama rally outside of one of the healthcare town hall meetings and the media, instead of just ignoring him, has plastered pictures of him all over the place, thus turning it into a fad.

Generally speaking the Secret Service doesn't have a choice - these people are outside the security perimeter for the event in states that allow open carry.

It was actually reported that nearly a dozen people were packing assault weapons at that particular protest and of course, that is the accessory du jour for town hall meetings.

At first, this sounds outrageous and as Decius pointed out, really really stupid. But think about it for a minute:

if you're upset about how the government is going to embark on spending your tax dollars, wasn't the whole point of the 2nd Amendment to allow your show of force as a means to keep the government in check? I do believe we discussed this interpretation before and it changed my mind a lot about guns in the US. This is perhaps the first time I've actually seen it used in this way and it may be effective. Think about whether people showed up to protest TARP with side arms strapped?

flynn23 wrote:
if you're upset about how the government is going to embark on spending your tax dollars, wasn't the whole point of the 2nd Amendment to allow your show of force as a means to keep the government in check? I do believe we discussed this interpretation before and it changed my mind a lot about guns in the US. This is perhaps the first time I've actually seen it used in this way and it may be effective. Think about whether people showed up to protest TARP with side arms strapped?

No, no, no.

here is nothing reasonable about these extremists. Bringing firearms to a protest rally - a mob environment where people are emotional and apt to do stupid things - would be irresponsible even if it was well intentioned, and it isn't.

The idea that they might roll out a public option healthcare plan is no where near the sort of situation in which people need to exercise "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

The Government is still controlled by elected representatives. The Constitution is still in force. No one is being killed. If you want to win in our political system you have to convince most people that you are right, and having respect for democracy means having the patience to give people the time to become persuaded by your views and the willingness to accept defeat when the public moves in another direction. To threaten violence is to abandon that democratic process in favor of coercion and intimidation. Its not self defense.

It is particularly disgusting coming from a political faction which is in the minority by only the thinnest margins, and has been out of power for a mere 6 months or so. These are the exact same people who popularized the sentiment that "elections have consequences" 4 years ago when their party was at the peak of its power.

Decius wrote:
here is nothing reasonable about these extremists. Bringing firearms to a protest rally - a mob environment where people are emotional and apt to do stupid things - would be irresponsible even if it was well intentioned, and it isn't.

The idea that they might roll out a public option healthcare plan is no where near the sort of situation in which people need to exercise "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

The Government is still controlled by elected representatives. The Constitution is still in force. No one is being killed. If you want to win in our political system you have to convince most people that you are right, and having respect for democracy means having the patience to give people the time to become persuaded by your views and the willingness to accept defeat when the public moves in another direction. To threaten violence is to abandon that democratic process in favor of coercion and intimidation. Its not self defense.

It is particularly disgusting coming from a political faction which is in the minority by only the thinnest margins, and has been out of power for a mere 6 months or so. These are the exact same people who popularized the sentiment that "elections have consequences" 4 years ago when their party was at the peak of its power.

I'm gonna take a different tact with this, particularly with the points that you raise. I mean... the system DOESN'T WORK! It's completely corrupted with corporate interests. It's not governed by representatives of the people. It's governed by shills of special interests and the banking class. While I don't think that the health care "debate" is the appropriate place to show this power; I would've liked to have seen this happen during the Iraq war protests, or the protests for TARP, or hell... the protests around the 2000 election. I do think that people feel helpless and that whatever happens in DC has nothing to do with their best interests and everything to do with their wallets.

I agree that this is being spurned by an extremist sect bent on rabble rousing, but why is it that this side of the political theater is more "effective" in its tactics than the left was for the last 8 years? In the end, who cares?

At what point do people get fed up and start demanding real accountability? I mean, your original post is about Obama's weakness. To put it bluntly, the Dems used his "uniqueness" as a means to seize power. Pelosi fucking runs the country, not Obama. And frankly, that pisses me off. We're barely 6 months into his administration and things don't smell very good. I've yet to see almost any of the big issues that need immediate addressing (economy, health, education, energy, infrastructure) be handled in a way that's more sustainable or equitable than before. It's simply 180 degrees of what the policies of the last 8 years have been, which is to say polar-wrong.

flynn23 wrote:
We're barely 6 months into his administration and things don't smell very good.

You're right, of course, but I think your reading a lot into what these guys represent that they don't represent. They'd be totting guns to town hall meetings at this moment no matter how good Obama was doing.

Decius wrote:

flynn23 wrote:
We're barely 6 months into his administration and things don't smell very good.

You're right, of course, but I think your reading a lot into what these guys represent that they don't represent. They'd be totting guns to town hall meetings at this moment no matter how good Obama was doing.

I agree with that. I think it's curious that Tea Party's and guns at protests seem to be a lot more effective memes than anything the left mounted during the Bush administration. Why is that?

I just think that it's not *completely* assinine to bring them to protests. I mean, if we're crazy enough to have automatic weapons in this country to the degree that we do, we might as well use them to some benefit, rather than to "hunt".