Hopefully he has some friends or acquaintances that aren't afraid to ridicule him.  Seriously?  You brought a gun to a protest near the president?  Oooooh, such a big man... I'll bet you have a huge penis.

This guy needs some good old fashioned mocking.  Why doesn't he go all the way?  Strap a big D&D bastard sword to his back.  Paint his face half-blue.  Wear a kilt and scream something like "They'll never take OUR FREEDOM!"

This is the 21st century fercryin' out loud.

We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.

democrats are pussies.

rethuglicans are belligerent bullies.

bullies win. pussies lose.

borat, the fucking pussy, has felt no compuction about abusing the powers usurped by bush and cheney to (a) execute signing statements (b) stop investigation into abuses (c) prevent the grant of rights to wrongly imprisoned people, just to name a few of the most egregious things.

however, we are supposed to believe that this same borat, fucking pussy, cannot use the laws used by bush to establish free speech zones and arrest the thugs that show up to rallies with guns.

there is no use complaining about hypocrisy and the "unfairness" of "imagine what would happen if the shoe were on the other foot and it was a muslim and bush".

if all you can do is talk, then you are just showing that democrats are gutless pussy worms.

grow a pair and use the _laws_ already available to arrest, prosecute, and punish anyone you think is committing a crime.

if no crime has been committed then shut up, and wait for a republican to come back to power. then do exactly what you are currently complaining about now.

at that time, you will probably be arrested and thrown in prison.

have the a.c.l.u take the case to court and either set you free or else establish a precedent in the supreme court that certain kinds of disruptive activity can be treated preemptively as a crime.

then wait for a democrat to come back to power, as the swinging pendulum of politics certainly guarantees, and then use that precedent to arrest rethuglican nutcases.

don't just sit and complain. if you do just that, you will always lose, and will always weep like a gutless gaping pussy about unfairness and hypocrisy.

I believe strongly in the right to bear arms, and I also believe in the right of concealed carry.

Here's what I don't come even close to believing in: A protester with a gun within about 2 miles of the president of the united states.

 Sooner of later, if these psychotics keep bringing guns to these events, something terrible is going to happen.

 The most disturbing thing in my opinion are the people who smile slyly and say "Well, maybe they had concealed carry permits."

I don't give a damn if they do, there is no good reason for bringing a gun to an event you plan on protesting at.  It's like bringing a match to a barrel full of gasoline.

This absolutely would not happen in California.

I will say that it's quite amusing how angry some people get on this subject.

Watching this particular clip, and the comments about it, were enough to get me to register here. 

 I'd like to introduce myself: I consider myself a libertarian, I live in Colorado, and I think Cenk's conclusion in this matter is utterly and completely wrong.

Normally, I find myself nodding in agreement with him; his take tends to be the same as mine, on most issues.

Here, though, I believe he's completely missed the boat. (No, not on Rush. He's a twit, and needs multiple STFU sandwiches.)

The guy with the gun: 

1. Stop talking about Bush. Bush gave us the Patriot Act, and Gitmo, and... well, we all know what the last 8 years have been like.  We presumably voted for Obama (those of us who did, naturally) because he's different, and, dare I say? better than Bush.  I, frankly, don't care what Bush would have done; it's not the yardstick I measure my personal morality/ethics by, and I sure hope Obama doesn't, either.  Though, to be fair, for all we know, if GW saw a fella packin, he'd be just as likely to tell his security detail, "Hey boys, tell that guy I've got one of them just like that at home."  You don't know; it was Bush. 

2. Continuing 1), Bush would likely not let ANYONE protest him, and didn't, regardless of their color, or religion. We don't have to guess about his behavior, we know what he did; peaceful protesters winding up arrested. Making this a racial issue might be a fun fap for some, but that's all it is.

3. (and I've no idea why I'm numbering these, but since we're this far in...) The guy had every right to be there with a gun. He has a constitutional right to be on PRIVATE property with a weapon, ASSUMING he's not breaking any laws. That means: He's registered it, he's passed the background checks, he's displaying it in accordance with the applicable state laws, and the gun itself doesn't violate any laws (ie, an uzi if they're banned there)

That's not to say he has the right to have a LOADED gun with him. Just that he can have a gun. :-)

4. Presumably, the secret service did a check on this guy, and verified he doesn't have mental issues, and that he's not planning on trying to shoot the President.

5. The main point people are missing: The guy isn't breaking the law. He's protesting! He's not threatening. Sure, he's touting one of the more violent Jefferson quotes, but that's a protected form of speech, as is the symbolism of the gun.  I'm surprised so many here are thinking so literally; usually, the far right hypocrites ("We're pro-life, and believe life is a truly precious thing, so we're going to kill those evil abortion doctors!") have a monopoly on that.  I don't know what this guy's agenda is, but he could well be just expressing his deep dis-satisfaction regarding Obama's policies.  That's his right.  He's on private property, and he's a law abiding citizen.  What makes America great is that we can disagree with our leaders; and thank Darwin for that! North Koreans aren't so fortunate, nor are some other not so liberated countries. (Darfur, anyone?) If you squelsh political dissent such as a guy openly displaying a gun and displaying a NON-RACIST NON-PARTISAN sign with a quote from one of the framer's of the Constitution, then what, exactly, makes us any different from them?

6. However, it's perfectly appropriate to ban just about anything from anywhere. This is the 'reasonable' part of amendments: You have the freedom of speech (which displaying a gun as a protest is more in line with than the right of the militia to bear arms, in this scenario) but you can't shout fire in a crowded theater.  Likewise, you can't bring a gun into a school, and shouldn't be allowed to. (Yes, I live in one of the counties with a nasty school shooting.  I'm VFF. This is an issue that isn't just 'happens elsewhere' for me.) You can't bring guns into most prisons now; you've got to check them.  I'm sure most of you know more examples. It's perfectly legal to say, "If you come in here, you'll abide by these rules." 

7. Yet, you can't try applying 'those' rules to people who haven't elected to be in 'there'.  I call this the Miley Cyrus point: No one's important enough to trump the Constitution, ESPECIALLY not the President.  We might enjoy the refreshing break that Obama gives us from previous Chief Executives who wanted to blow everything up, but we aren't in a monarchy.  No one person is more important than our Constitution, and laws shouldn't be tailored to any one person. There's a reason it was framed as it was: specifically to prevent someone from 'becoming' that important.  Miley Cyrus wants to make it a no-no to say mean things on the Internet.  Next thing you know, folks won't be allowed to have projectile weapons around celebrities. (And, I know this'll offend some, but, frankly, given the choice, well... I just think Jodie Foster's a pinch cuter than Obama.  He's a handsome man, but ... did you see her in Contact? Definitely would spend quality time with her.  Where was I? Oh, right... ranting...) After celebrities, we'll have to make sure that when a politician's speaking, no one in the crowd can be armed... even if it's just the local mayor.  This is a far too slippery slope.  If that man had tried to come inside, take his gun away! No question! But, one, two, three, five, eight, thirteen, or twenty-one of these people show up with guns at an Obama rally, and are within the letter of the law, then what's the problem?

8.  Even if the guy DOES want to harm the President (which is unlikely; he wouldn't be advertising that he was armed, and most nutjobs are too uneducated to know who Jefferson was, much less quote him), INTENT is not yet a crime.

9. Again, thank goodness we don't have to imagine what Bush would do. We know he was and is a wanker. Just because that crowd's got some serious investment in hypocrisy, doesn't mean YOU should.

10. Obama has class. I wish he'd gone over to that guy, acknowledged his sign, and thanked him for his opinion. Wouldn't that have been beautiful?

11. Folks, be careful with your extremes... too far to the left just puts you in the same place as those too far to the right.

(I posted most of this in comment on youtube, but, hard to have a serious discussion there.)

Oh, and finally, not everyone who disagrees with the President's policies are going to go bomb a building. (I'm not sure McVeigh even understood the shirt he was wearing. I heard his momma dressed him.) I don't agree with all of Obama's policies, and I voted for him.  Our duty as citizens is to take our elected officials to task. Blind subserviance, regardless of party affiliation, simply leads to a theocracy; God* help us all.

*Feel free to pray to the diety of your choice. The Pink Unicorn, in Her greatness, tells me that I don't have to kill you if you don't believe in Her.  Unless your diety's the FSM, in which case, her Pinkness does declare She's quite famished, and would you (and your diety) mind stepping in, just a little closer?

The essence of freedom is proper limitation of government.

Now that this one guy has gotten away with bringing a gun to a Presidential town hall/rally, that many more wingnuts will dare to do so.

The consequences are, sadly, all too foreseeable. 

1.  Red, I completely think that you deserve the comments I have given you on the matter of gun rights.  I wouldn't have typed them if I thought otherwise, and I am not very happy to see you implying to someone else that my comments are undeserved, even if you may not agree with them.  And I don't frankly care if my view in this case happens to be in the majority here, or if my next view will be in the minority.  I am not taking my cues from the viewpoints of other people, and BTW I am not afraid of guns or gun use, and have said to you that I think Americans should have a chance to responsibly defend themselves as commensurate to an imminent threat that they face.

2.  Sigil:  I think (and I'm not sure, and I will not comment on the legacy of Thomas Jefferson here) that plooger is referring to Tim McVeigh as "our infamous domestic terrorist", not Thomas Jefferson.  And to John Booth as the presidential assassin.

3.  I am sure that you would agree that it is permissible to get extremely angry at people who are not breaking any laws.  Much of the heinous pillaging of our economy by banks and corporations has been _legal_.  Much of the scandalous relationship between the media, the Congress and the lobbyists is _legal_.  This does not mean that there is no suitable place for emotion in these issues, nor that people cannot simultaneously condemn these legal actions and also condemn Congress (or the state legislature) for not making the actions illegal.

4.  I _would_ charge this man with a crime--that of negligence.  It is legal to bring a vicious dog to a picnic where scores of children are eating bacon and taunting the dog.  And I could say "Well, I'm being responsible--I have the dog on a leash, I have the muscular capacity to hold the leash firmly enough to keep the dog from ripping the leash out of my hand, and I have told the park management that I will be legally walking through the park with my dog.  I do not wish for my dog to attack anyone."  But there is always a chance that the leash could snap, and this would lead to a situation far worse than if I had used the common sense to not keep a vicious dog in the vicinity of bacon-eating, taunting children.  In other words, the leash could theoretically snap during any walk, but this situation is particularly perilous for the hypothetical outcome of this occurrence.  "I'm a very responsible smoker, who always extinguishes my matches diligently, does not allow minors to smoke my cigarettes, does not litter, and does not smoke in undesignated public areas.  Therefore, being responsible, I feel justified in smoking while sitting on a tank of gasoline at the base of the town's water tower.  What could happen?"  The following things were/are significantly more likely to occur upon this New Hampshire man's actions.

    A.  Someone irresponsible could have wrestled the (loaded--he said on MSNBC that the gun was loaded) gun from him and used it irresponsibly.  Or the gun could have gotten lost or accidentally discharged by a raucous crowd gathering around him.  

    B.  Seeing his gun could have led to increasingly rabid behavior among less responsible people.  Not his fault, per se, but as a direct result of seeing his gun and being further radicalized by its symbolism.  Yes, I know that one person's "rabid behavior" is another person's "spirited cries of the vigilant citizenry," but I am writing this from a perspective of not being in favor of public melees. 

    C.  People could have been intimidated away from this process by the appearance of vigilanteism backed by force--even if the original gun owner did not intend this.  If, as he wished, hundreds of (even responsible) protestors had been armed, this level of intimidation would have dramatically escalated.  It may be the case that my attending an event which will give me a 1 in 500 chance of possibly expressing my voice to a Congressman whose vote has been bought and paid for by an insurance company is "democracy" and worth risking my life over, but I'd rather not have to make that choice.

   D.  Irresponsible people attending other rallies might see this video and be inspired to bring their own guns.  Does every Congressman have the same level of security as the President does?  Does every group of left-wing protesters attempting to legally utilize the same outside-the-hall space to express their views--do they have sufficient security to be protected from irresponsible people who are desensitized to the gravity of protesting while being armed?

I don't think I am being hyperbolic here.  I don't think that proving a point about extremism being necessary for the protection of moderation needs to physically endanger lives to be made.  I am fine living in a free enough society to tolerate "nutjobs."  But if we have so many of them that basic civility is threatened by force, we don't have a society.


 

Everyone thinks it outlandish, that the secret service would never allow this, a man with a gun so close to the president. They would if it was one of theirs working as an agent provocateur. Watch the video closely. The  guy has a wire in his right ear. They don't want these rallies and town halls to be peaceful. Someone wants the violence and is getting tired of waiting for it. They want martial law, a reason to crack down, a further reason to erode Posse Comitotis and usher in a police state.They are empowering the crazies to come out and play.

Stop worrying about the gun and start worrying about the men behind the curtain and why they want to demonize guns so badly. Every dictator in history has done gun confiscation before they took over. You can't rule an armed populace. The founding fathers were very aware of this which is why they made the 2nd amendment so prominent. With our congress so in bed with big business, only the threat of revolution can keep them in line. Remove the guns, remove the threat. Keep the military busy over seas and then bring in UN forces to secure the country. Some of you are now laughing at this. You'll stop soon enough. While you are busily playing checkers, they are playing chess.

M