The Jury Is In... They Really Are Total Loons

[Greco]

"No one broke any laws and no one got hurt. What is the problem? Does "law abiding" translate into "nutty" in your book simply because you don't like the law?"

This isn't the first time, I doubt it will be the last. BigRob makes a statement not made in the post, then challenges it.

But as long as he raised his own subject. Yes it's nutty, actually quite stupid, to bring a gun, much less an assault rifle, to a gathering with the president. That's a really, really dumb idea to think the very fearful wingnuts need to pack heat everywhere they go.

Since BigRob obviously disagrees, I have a suggestion. Why don't you contact your Representative in Washington, and your Senators, and suggest they remove any and all restrictions to bringing weapons, especially assault rifles, to the Capitol? Tell 'em all about the Second Ammendment and how kewl it would look in the visitor's gallery to see all those weapons being displayed. Give 'em all your best arguments why that's a great idea.

Let's see how far you get with that one BigRob. You can report back on the progress of your suggestion.

 

[BigRob]

This isn't the first time, I doubt it will be the last. BigRob makes a statement not made in the post, then challenges it.

Did you in your original post not infer that the people carrying guns were "nutty" even though they were acting within the law? You stated "If you don't think the Republican Party, and the uninformed screaming protesters are a pack of total loons, wait until you read this...Today, there was about a dozen protesters that showed up armed with guns. One of them actually brought his assault rifle, an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon. According to the Phoenix police, the gun packing angry wingnuts didn't need permits, and the police said no crimes were committed and no one was arrested."

You called protesters "loons" and "wingnuts" because you disagreed with their actions, even though they were entirely in line with the law. Following the law does not make someone a "loon."

But as long as he raised his own subject. Yes it's nutty, actually quite stupid, to bring a gun, much less an assault rifle, to a gathering with the president. That's a really, really dumb idea to think the very fearful wingnuts need to pack heat everywhere they go.

The problem with your statement is that he did not bring an assault rifle to a gathering with the President. That would be illegal. The man was outside, and nowhere near the President.

Since BigRob obviously disagrees, I have a suggestion.

I do not agree with the idea of "packing heat everywhere I go." I simply stated that the man followed all the state laws, and did nothing wrong.

Why don't you contact your Representative in Washington, and your Senators, and suggest they remove any and all restrictions to bringing weapons, especially assault rifles, to the Capitol? Tell 'em all about the Second Ammendment and how kewl it would look in the visitor's gallery to see all those weapons being displayed. Give 'em all your best arguments why that's a great idea.

Let's see how far you get with that one BigRob. You can report back on the progress of your suggestion.

You have clearly missed the entire point of my comments. I merely advocated that the law ought to be followed, and the law prevents people from carrying weapons to the Capitol. The law however did not prevent this man from taking his weapon to the rally. I stand for the law to be enforced, what is the problem with that?

 

[Greco]

So you're saying you have no objections to laws that do regulate firearms?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

breaking no law does not , mean that you are not acting like a nut still. alot of nuts have not broken a law....untill right before someone ended up dead

 

[PLC1]

There are a lot of crazy things that people can do without breaking a law. Is it illegal to stand in the middle of the sidewalk and howl at the moon? How about putting a bottle rocket in your butt and setting it off (I actually saw a video of that one).

Carrying a loaded weapon in a crowd of people who are likely to be irrational and shouting is not the sanest act, legal or not.

 

[Dr.Who]

And yet the man with the gun was anti-all governement. He just might as well have showed up with a gun if Bush were inside. He does not represent the right any more than the palestinian who was upset that another Dem was not elected represents the right when he made a pic of Obama as the Joker.

 

[BigRob]

So you're saying you have no objections to laws that do regulate firearms?

Which law and what regulation? I might disagree with a law, but once it is passed it is the law, and I think it should be enforced.

 

[BigRob]

In my view, both of the examples cited do not equate to someone being a "nut." Carrying a gun around in a legal capacity and not doing anything that would incite violence does not make you a "nut."

Maybe an environmentalist thinks someone is a "nut" for driving a Hummer. Nothing about driving a Hummer makes a person a "nut", except perhaps the individual opinion of the environmentalist. That is really all we have here in my view, individual opinions reflecting onto these people who did nothing wrong.

 

[Bunz]

I wonder, have you ever said this about the left?

It is no secret I have been critical of what you call the msm when I felt it deserved it.

 

[Bunz]

First of all, the man was never even inside with the President and there was no danger to the President.

Additionally, the man would not have been allowed inside with such a weapon, regardless of state law, because when the Secret Service handles a site it becomes a federal site, thereby nullifying any state law that would allow an open carry.

The President was never in danger because of this.

I dont think that is the main concern, the safety of the crowd would be my concern. I dont care who is at the meeting. When it comes to that sort of setting, there is no place for a citizen to be openly carrying a loaded AR-15 in such a crowd.
What that man displayed was not responsible gun ownership in my opinion.

 

[Bunz]

Bunz, you receive my respect again for your open support of the 2nd.

About the 'right wing' media. Inflammatory? I guess it can be to a few. There are those who are susceptible to that in any group of a given size you want to put together.


Ideology driven? Yep. No doubt. But at least they state it clearly. It is evidenced by them, their stations, magazines, etc. It is received by their listeners, readers, etc. And it is confirmed by their advertising sponsors. They are not reliant of support by taking from others who are unwilling.

Stir things up? Of course. Since our pre-Revolutionary days, that is how things have gotten done, how things have gotten changed.

Millions of people? Good. The more the merrier, and the message of the ideology reaching more and more.

Propaganda? Sure. By definition (M-W), it is the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. I know your insinuation, as is typical in the use of this word, is the focus of rumor. Even a rumor can be fact-based, so I take limited umbrage to that. That still leaves a solid two out three, so I'll definitely take it as a valid word. And the purpose. Absolutely.

Injuring - any institution, cause or person that is not conducive to freedom, rule of law, constitutionality, etc. is a fair target as far as I'm concerned. "Injuring" is up to and including destroying the faulty philosophy or argument embraced by any institution, cause or person in the field of ideas and persuasion. It's not burning a building, blowing up a bus, throwing paint or ANY person.

Propaganda appears to be a wrongly denigrated word. So due to it's accepted negative connotation, I protest your use of it. But by the use of it from a factual sense, okay...

You and I have always been able to agree on something respectfully and I appreciate that. I look forward to more exchanges.
As for the "news" media, to be honest, I dont watch much cable news, because it is largely no longer news. I do actually watch an equal amount of the big three when I do tune in. I also get my time with the radio and tune in to Rush and the like mostly just to hear what is being said. Some of it blows my mind.

So, you seem to embrace the Fox model of overtly partisan news, and I prefer something more bland and editorial based.

 

[Bunz]

No one broke any laws and no one got hurt. What is the problem? Does "law abiding" translate into "nutty" in your book simply because you don't like the law?

It is nutty because it is highly uncommon in America for someone to do such a thing and in most stable democracies around the world. Sure he didnt break any laws, and no arrests were made. That is fine, and the police acted accordingly for what went down. Frankly I am amazed that such a crowd gathered around him.
If I was there, I would have brought myself and anyone with me away from him quickly and alerted the nearest police officer. I support the ownership of those rifles, I do not support toting a loaded one in a crowd of people.

 

[Bunz]

From the OP:



It seems Big Rob is right. The gun toting protesters were not inside with the pres, where one of them could have taken a shot at him.

Still, I wonder whether there will be an assassination attempt, and how it will end:

Will it end like the attempt on Kennedy, i.e., successful, or like the attempt on Reagan, unsuccessful but still tragic?

Will an unsuccessful assassination attempt be one more parallel between Obama's presidency and Reagan's?

Stay tuned, folks, this is getting interesting.

I sincerely hope that nothing of the sort happens. If I were religious, this sort of thing would be on my top 3 to pray for.

Either way, we can all agree that the President was not in danger. I would ask what the risk to the crowd was? All it takes is for him to make one quick movement towards that gun and people start to flee and the worst case scenario is that a few folks get hurt in the stampede.
I would suggest that it is within the realm of possibility that guy, could have inflicted considerable harm to everyone without much effort.

 

[Bunz]

There are a lot of crazy things that people can do without breaking a law. Is it illegal to stand in the middle of the sidewalk and howl at the moon? How about putting a bottle rocket in your butt and setting it off (I actually saw a video of that one).

Carrying a loaded weapon in a crowd of people who are likely to be irrational and shouting is not the sanest act, legal or not.

Well said. I dont think it should matter if the President was in attendance or not, there is not a responsible excuse for having that rifle there. I have no doubt he was there to cause a stir, and was looking for a confrontation with the attendees or the authorities. Which could have quickly escalated out of control. Bad move all around, and this guy pulling this stunt ultimately hurts those that want to be responsible gun owners.

 

[Bunz]

And yet the man with the gun was anti-all governement. He just might as well have showed up with a gun if Bush were inside. He does not represent the right any more than the palestinian who was upset that another Dem was not elected represents the right when he made a pic of Obama as the Joker.

I generally agree. I think we would agree that it shouldnt matter who was in attendance. The general idea that someone would show up at a public event with a loaded AR-15 openly displayed is misguided.

I couldnt even imagine the Dallas Cowboys sponsoring a bring your Ar-15 to the new stadium day.