PDA

View Full Version : Open carry reactions from the anti-gun press


Ground Loop
08-21-2009, 1:16 PM
I read a few of the anti-gun blogs and such, just to see how they color the news with their own special slant.
They're not as fast as the 2A supporters, and they're just now getting some rhetoric on-line. It's easy to tell they're desperately trying to make a crisis when none exists, but the logic is twisted. Here are examples:

D.C. delegate calls for ban on guns near Obama (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/d.c.-delegate-calls-for-ban-on-guns-near-obama-2009-08-19.html)
This word "brandishing".. I don't think it means what they think it does.

numerous news reports have shown groups of people brandishing firearms while outside of events held by Obama over the past several weeks.

It is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the president is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that are even closer to the President, Norton said.

Heavily-Armed '90s Militia, Linked To Anti-Obama Activist, Resisted 'New World Order' (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/heavily_armed_militia_defended_by_activist_resiste d_new_world_order.php)
Attempts to tie open-carry in with the Vipers.

Like today's gun-wielding anti-Obama protesters, the Vipers feared government encroachment by a Democratic president The father of a one militia member recalled him saying, "You should be happy you won't be around in 30 years. The way we're going, we've got to stop it. I hope we'll change presidents and stop the One World Order."



Eleanor Holmes Norton, Calls For Ban On Guns Near Obama (http://www.freedomstatesalliance.com/?p=301)

John Stewart: Barrel Fever (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-18-2009/the-gun-show---barrel-fever)

Breathless Huffington Post "Guns Guns Everywhere" rant (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/guns-guns-everywhere_b_265103.html)

Every so often, we get a picture - with crystal clarity -- of the kind of country the radical "gun rights" crowd wants America to be.

Goes on to directly accuse the activists of bringing guns to suppress 1A expression.

The point of openly carrying guns at political events is to make a political statement and to do it in the most intimidating way possible. The statement is this: "You can have all the debates you want, but if laws are passed that I regard as 'tyranny,' I reserve the right to resist them by force of arms."

No attribution, of course.. it's the author's quote.

The radical "gun rights" vision of the ideal America. Guns in every corner of American society - concealed or carried openly for all to see - threatening our safety and our democracy.


SFGate: Ban Guns etc etc (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/21/EDGP19BAS8.DTL&type=printable)

These and other similar examples are accurately summarized with the same language federal law employs to describe domestic terrorism. The weapons-brandishing displays are "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Yes, the gun has been transformed from a sport and self-defense device into a tool of mass bullying. Like the noose in the Jim Crow South, its symbolic message is clear: If you dare engage in the democratic process, you risk bodily harm.


I don't think they get the irony in comparing the AZ AR to the "noose".

MasterYong
08-21-2009, 1:24 PM
The point of openly carrying guns at political events is to make a political statement and to do it in the most intimidating way possible. The statement is this: "You can have all the debates you want, but if laws are passed that I regard as 'tyranny,' I reserve the right to resist them by force of arms."

Isn't that what the 2A is all about?

The founding fathers basically saying: "Listen, we were under the oppression of tyrants with tyrannical, totalitarian laws. We resisted this tyranny with force, and we won. Tell ya what- we'll put this whole second amendment thingy in here, just in case this bull*#&$# happens again. If it does, you are more than welcome to shoot us."

I'm pretty sure that was the general idea.

Not that I think anyone deserves to be shot over the healthcare debate- I'm just saying that taken as a general statement (and possibly out of context) stating that it's wrong to fight tyranny with force is a special brand of stupid.

Ground Loop
08-21-2009, 1:26 PM
The overall article was asserting that the firearms were not there to resist tyrannical decisions, but to stifle discourse and debate on the policies.. to suppress 1A, essentially. They didn't make a convincing case that this actually took place.

POLICESTATE
08-21-2009, 1:30 PM
If the lefties want to whine about something why don't they whine about all the jobs lost in the central valley thanks to their stupid delta smelt and cutting off the water supply to the farms?

Seems they did a great job stifling jobs and revenue with that one.

Sgt5811
08-21-2009, 5:29 PM
Quote:
The point of openly carrying guns at political events is to make a political statement and to do it in the most intimidating way possible. The statement is this: "You can have all the debates you want, but if laws are passed that I regard as 'tyranny,' I reserve the right to resist them by force of arms."

Sounds about right. I'm cool with that assertion.

phamkl
08-21-2009, 5:39 PM
That is why I don't particularly like that they OC'd at these events but truthfully, no one had anything to fear from these men. Had they actually brandished the guns, they would've committed a crime and been arrested.

SickofSoCal
08-21-2009, 5:44 PM
I can guarantee you that 99.9% if these fools didn't even know about legal open carry in most states........until they saw it on their I.V. screens in the last two weeks.


Big deal. The whole idea of Liberty is that in order to have it, you tolerate others use of it. Duh!

Scratch705
08-21-2009, 6:23 PM
we should plant some OC'ers to hold pro-obama signs at a town hall. then lets see how the media treats it

hoffmang
08-21-2009, 10:27 PM
Isn't that what the 2A is all about?


Nope. The Founding Fathers put down the Whiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion) because they resorted to arms before they completed all the other opportunities to petition for redress of grievance.

It's an old saying that most here don't seem to internalize:
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order.

-Gene

swhatb
08-22-2009, 9:20 PM
It's an old saying that most here don't seem to internalize: Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order.
-Gene

LOL

gcvt
08-22-2009, 10:30 PM
“It is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the president is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that are even closer to the President,” Norton said.

Really? Last time I checked, air travel is not a right provided by the Constitution but the RKBA is. What a stupid thing to say.

Soldier415
08-22-2009, 10:38 PM
People fear what they don't understand. The big problem here is that these people are not even attempting to understand. They are allowing themselves to be led around by the nose without looking even slightly into the subject at hand.

Frightening that our populace has lost the drive to learn and investigate, and instead chooses to immediately accept what they are told as the gospel.

Opus109
08-22-2009, 10:46 PM
I can guarantee you that 99.9% if these fools didn't even know about legal open carry in most states........until they saw it on their I.V. screens in the last two weeks.

+1

I was reading an article on CNN.com about the OC'ers at the Obama appearance, and a little side poll actually said: Should people be allowed to own guns? Excuse me?! WTF??!!

I will open myself up to ridicule by admitting that I proudly voted for Obama, and that I still support his administration so far. On the other hand, I am also a supporter of the 2d Amendment.

This recent media coverage of the OC'ers is absolutely ridiculous: the alarmist tone and presumption that the presence of guns is, by itself, a threat to the President, and to people in general. I completely disagree.

POLICESTATE
08-22-2009, 11:12 PM
The mainstream media makes me sick most of the time. It's sad when you realize they assault our rights just to get a few extra points in the ratings. Perhaps we should begin referring to them as the Ratings Whores they are.

Pig Flu, Guns, Bird Flu, SARS, Global Warming, fat guys in little pants, bubble gum on sidewalks. You'd think everything they report on is the end of the world or the sky is going to fall.

People need to learn to turn off the TV in this country once in awhile. Once you stop watching TV for a couple of months you realize just how full of $&#@ everything on it is. I get by fine with a Netflix account and I save a nice chunk of change not having the service.

Meplat
08-22-2009, 11:58 PM
Surpression of the Whisky Rebellion was the first example of the federal government going wrong. George Washington was a giant among the founders, but even he was falable.
Nope. The Founding Fathers put down the Whiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion) because they resorted to arms before they completed all the other opportunities to petition for redress of grievance.

It's an old saying that most here don't seem to internalize:
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order.

-Gene

greasemonkey
08-23-2009, 12:16 AM
Pig Flu, Guns, Bird Flu, SARS, Global Warming, fat guys in little pants, bubble gum on sidewalks. You'd think everything they report on is the end of the world or the sky is going to fall.

People need to learn to turn off the TV in this country once in awhile. Once you stop watching TV for a couple of months you realize just how full of $&#@ everything on it is. I get by fine with a Netflix account and I save a nice chunk of change not having the service.

It's the Chickenlittle News Network :) I don't care much for watching TV, used to watch it a lot even last year. Spent two weeks in a 3rd world country just after christmas and have zero interest in watching TV since then.

BillCA
08-23-2009, 12:53 AM
Before I send this off to SF-Gate, I'd like to hear any feedback. This is response to David Sirota's article on August 21.


Gun Controversy Off Target
Despite the spin of the liberally biased media, complaints about armed protesters at several town hall meetings are way off target. Predictably, many people have had reactions from "pass another law!" to wetting themselves over the sight of armed citizens. Most of it is just plain silly.

The citizens of Tennessee, New Hampshire and Arizona are allowed to openly carry firearms by law. In New Hampshire and Arizona, no permit is necessary. In Tennessee, a permit to carry concealed allows open carry too. No laws were broken. No one was hurt. Firearms stayed in their holsters where they are safely secured. The rifle remained slung over the man's shoulder. There's no news here. None at all. Unless it's manufactured.

And, that's essentially what it is. People who fear guns and fear others who have guns have manufactured a story. Stories like David Sirota's August 21st column, that claim the mere presence of a gun, legally and responsibly carried, can be considered a threat to stifle free speech or equated to a KKK lynching shows how removed we are from this country's ideals.

A headline reading "Armed men Show Up at Obama Rally. Nothing Happens" isn't possible in today's media. The true measure of this story is how people doing something legal can generate so many headlines. Then, the media has always feared blacks with guns. The only major difference between the reporting on May 2, 1967, when armed Black Panthers briefly occupied the California Capitol building and events in 2009, is that the Panthers received more sympathetic coverage. Oh, despite some media attempts to hide it, you knew the Arizona man with a rifle was an African-American, right?

The real purpose of such displays are to remind the American public that our rights are being trampled and that a citizen trying to fully exercise his rights is a target for government or public harassment or scorn. Exercising the 1st and 2nd Amendment together is now, to the media pundits like Sirota, somehow verboten. The mere act of exercising two rights "marred" one event and is bullying, intimidation or coercion at others.

Why is it that the left aways loudly proclaims "MY RIGHT" when it comes to their bodies or the use of drugs, violent and lurid lyrics in music and other such pursuits? But it suddenly becomes a "public safety issue" or a "societal issue" when a man simply exercises his right to own or carry a firearm? Why is a woman's right to choose, which is not found in the constitution - an inalienable personal right while a right expressly written in the constitution is not?

In sum, the left believes all of our rights belong to the individual, except one. If you dare try to fully exercise that one right, you must be an extremist. Moreover, if you combine exercising your right to bear arms with your right to protest, you must be a terrorist or intent on suppressing speech. I guess it is inconceivable to some people that we can exercise all of our rights all the time.

Dr. Peter Venkman
08-23-2009, 2:28 AM
I will open myself up to ridicule by admitting that I proudly voted for Obama, and that I still support his administration so far. On the other hand, I am also a supporter of the 2d Amendment.

:eek: :confused: :(

hollabillz
08-23-2009, 3:01 AM
:eek: :confused: :(

Eh... Better than McCain. If only Ron Paul had been nominated instead. :mad:

Ground Loop
08-23-2009, 10:33 AM
EJ Dionne of The Washington Post (via Philadelphia Inquirer) opines:
Gun-toters' message is anti-freedom (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090823_E__J__Dionne__Gun-toters__message_is_anti-freedom.html)

It's about the politics of the jackboot. It's not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It's about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.
...
Lynching was the act of those who refused to let the legal system do its work. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments.

Yes, I have raised the racial issue, and it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president's public events only now, when the president is black. Race is not the only thing at stake here, and I have no knowledge of the personal motivations of those carrying the weapons.


This, right next to an uncropped picture of the AZ AR carrier, has to make people think "what?".

Roadrunner
08-23-2009, 10:49 AM
Eh... Better than McCain. If only Ron Paul had been nominated instead. :mad:

Well he wasn't! Why, because we have too many freaking liberal RINO's who measure their conservative leanings by how tight they hang onto their wallets. Get over it.

Timberline
08-23-2009, 10:58 AM
It's an old saying that most here don't seem to internalize:
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order.

-Gene

Sage advice.

Ground Loop
08-23-2009, 11:03 AM
“It is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the president is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that are even closer to the President,” Norton said.

Really? Last time I checked, air travel is not a right provided by the Constitution but the RKBA is. What a stupid thing to say.

In fact, a much better comparison would be the "Free Speech Zones" at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and elsewhere to restrict where people can practice their 1A rights. Usually to a point where the Speech so far removed as to be useless.

A delicious comparison, it is. It would make the media's head explode if they thought about it for too long.

scc1909
08-23-2009, 11:21 AM
EJ Dionne of The Washington Post (via Philadelphia Inquirer) opines:
Yes, I have raised the racial issue, and it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president's public events only now, when the president is black. Race is not the only thing at stake here, and I have no knowledge of the personal motivations of those carrying the weapons.

This, right next to an uncropped picture of the AZ AR carrier, has to make people think "what?".
Dionne is a moran. The liberal wing of the media are in such a rush to paint 2A proponents with the racism brush that they completely ignore the facts of the case. Yes, our President is black, but he has also on numerous occasions stated in effect that he doesn't believe the 2A protects the individual RKBA. Moreover, the President has stated that he believes States and Cities have the authority to impose "reasonable" restrictions in the the 2A. Reasonable being defined as whatever that State or City wants it to mean, even if it is the total prohibition of gun ownership.

THIS is what 2A proponents are protesting when they show up armed at political rallies.

hollabillz
08-25-2009, 10:03 PM
Well he wasn't! Why, because we have too many freaking liberal RINO's who measure their conservative leanings by how tight they hang onto their wallets. Get over it.

no u

..lolol. I'm over it. Obama was a close second. I'd think a self-proclaimed "right wing extremist" would have more to get over with the current dem domination. No offense, let's be civil <3<3 You're right though, Paul was a big fraud.. but running repub was the only chance he had, and a slim one as we saw. 2012? ;)

lioneaglegriffin
08-25-2009, 10:32 PM
Nope. The Founding Fathers put down the Whiskey Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion) because they resorted to arms before they completed all the other opportunities to petition for redress of grievance.

It's an old saying that most here don't seem to internalize:
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. Use in that order.

-Gene

must--




have--




sig.

M. D. Van Norman
08-26-2009, 8:02 AM
Despite the spin of the liberally biased media, complaints about armed protesters at several town hall meetings are way off target. Predictably, many people have had reactions from "pass another law!" to wetting themselves over the sight of armed citizens. Most of it is just plain silly.

The citizens of Tennessee, New Hampshire and Arizona are allowed to openly carry firearms by law. In New Hampshire and Arizona, no permit is necessary. In Tennessee, a permit to carry concealed allows open carry too. No laws were broken. No one was hurt. Firearms stayed in their holsters where they are safely secured. The rifle remained slung over the man's shoulder. There's no news here. None at all. Unless it's manufactured.

And, that's essentially what it is. People who fear guns and fear others who have guns have manufactured a story. Stories like David Sirota's August 21st column, that claim the mere presence of a gun, legally and responsibly carried, can be considered a threat to stifle free speech or equated to a KKK lynching shows how removed we are from this country's ideals.

A headline reading "Armed men Show Up at Obama Rally. Nothing Happens" isn't possible in today's media. The true measure of this story is how people doing something legal can generate so many headlines. Then, the media has always feared blacks with guns. The only major difference between the reporting on May 2, 1967, when armed Black Panthers briefly occupied the California Capitol building and events in 2009, is that the Panthers received more sympathetic coverage. Oh, despite some media attempts to hide it, you knew the Arizona man with a rifle was an African-American, right?

The real purpose of such displays are to remind the American public that our rights are being trampled and that a citizen trying to fully exercise his rights is a target for government or public harassment or scorn. Exercising the 1st and 2nd Amendment together is now, to the media pundits like Sirota, somehow verboten. The mere act of exercising two rights "marred" one event and is bullying, intimidation or coercion at others.

Why is it that the left [someone] aways loudly proclaims "MY RIGHT" when it comes to their bodies or the use of drugs, violent and lurid lyrics in music and other such pursuits? But it suddenly becomes a "public safety issue" or a "societal issue" when a man simply exercises his right to own or carry a firearm? Why is a woman's right to choose which is not found in the constitution an inalienable personal right while a right expressly written in the constitution is not?

In sum, the left [media] believes all of our rights belong to the individual, except one. If you dare try to fully exercise that one right, you must be an extremist. Moreover, if you combine exercising your right to bear arms with your right to protest, you must be a terrorist or intent on suppressing speech. I guess it is inconceivable to some people that we can exercise all of our rights all the time.

Bill, if its not too late, see my suggested changes above.

PEBKAC
08-26-2009, 8:53 AM
Left leaning spin though it may be, at least the Daily show is funny. :D

Strangely enough, it seemed less biased than most other sources. :confused:

bwiese
08-26-2009, 9:00 AM
Before I send this off to SF-Gate, I'd like to hear any feedback. This is response to David Sirota's article on August 21.

"Why is a woman's right to choose, which is not found in the constitution - an inalienable personal right while a right expressly written in the constitution is not?"


This concept as quoted above factors big-time into recognizing a fully-realized and incorporated 2nd.

If an unenumerated concept can be found to be a right (under privacy, and there is some logic to this despite what some would say) then a specifcally enumerated right must be found to be valid.

BillCA: good article/writing. I would encourage use of M.D. Van Norman's tweaks