TPM LiveWire

Man With Assault Rifle Outside Obama Event: 'We Will Forcefully Resist'

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

In a YouTube video, the man who carried a semi-automatic assault rifle outside yesterday's presidential event tells fellow demonstrators "We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."

The man, only identified as "Chris," spoke against taxation: "Just because you sic the government on people doesn't make it morally OK to steal money from people. Taxation is theft."

He also said "it would be insane" not to be armed, saying he wears a gun at all times.

But he didn't seem to be planning any violence. At the beginning of the video, a voice off-camera asks, "You gonna water the tree of liberty?" a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Chris responded, "I hope not."

The video comes from a libertarian group called Freedom's Phoenix and another group called 4409, which opposes police security cameras.

Watch:

Late update: In another video, this one from the Associated Press, "Chris" says he is "absolutely, totally against" health care reform, saying such a plan would amount to "stealing it from people."

He also said more people should carry guns openly in states where it's legal.

"People need to get out there and do it more," he said.

Latter Update: Ernest Hancock, the man who organized "Chris's" trip to the Obama event and himself came to the event armed, had close ties to a violent militia group charged with plotting to blow up federal buildings in the mid-1990s.

Join the Conversation!

159 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

August 18, 2009 10:21 AM   

Why don’t' these make believe tough guys prove they have courage and sign up to fight for our country. They wont because they like to pretend they have balls

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 3:56 PM    in reply to pmb50

How do you know this guy isn't a veteran or reservist? You have no idea.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:24 AM   

This guy is a terrorist.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

August 18, 2009 2:28 PM    in reply to Marquis de SeaToShiningSea

He is, in any event, certainly anti-democratic. There is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority, certainly, and that's one thing the Bill of Rights is designed to protect against, but that does not mean that anything the majority decides is tyrannical.

Those guys who don't want to live by majority rule, who want to live by the law of the guy with the biggest gun can go live in Sudan or Colombia. That's not the kind of society we opted for here.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:03 PM    in reply to slb

Welcome to the Framers' concept of "checks and balances". Not only did they intentionally set the three branches of the Federal Government at odds, but also the people, the states, and the Federal Government at odds.

With the slow decrease in State's rights and the alienation of large parts of the US, is it a shock to see resistance?

I also do not get where you think "rule through bigger gun" because--if you think about it--when most people have guns it's not so much who has the biggest as who--in an area--has the most people with them, working together...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 12:22 AM    in reply to Deathbunny

History disproves this interpretation of the framers' intent. It makes no sense to say that the framers intended for citizens to be able to resist the actions of the government by force -- it's the opposite of government, and of democracy, for armed factions to stand against the legitimately elected government.

As proof, there is the Whiskey Rebellion, in which George Washington sent federal troops to arrest an armed group seeking to resist federal authority (a tax on whiskey). Clearly, Washington did not believe that armed resistance was contemplated as a legitimate way to oppose governmental actions one disagreed with. If Washington isn't a "framer" I don't know who is -- they wrote the constitution with the intention of electing him President, and he signed it.

This notion of armed citizens being able to individually challenge the federal government is the same theory that the Confederacy used to attempt to secede. They lost, and legally they don't have a leg to stand on. They're delusional. Unfortunately, it will likely take something serious happening before the threat of these nuts is taken seriously.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 2:08 AM    in reply to Headlight

I think you're mistaken, given other writings of the framers. You do have a point about the Whiskey Rebellion being an assertion of Federal power, but the legal backing for the adventure was the Militia Act of 1792. This allowed the Federal response to insurrection but limited the use of Federal power--possibly as a response to the Whiskey Rebellion--to situations primarily where the States request help.

Secondarily, it was for violations of Federal law where the courts couldn't control it and requested assistance...

...but the primary instrument used by the Federal government was the militia--the people of that area. Even non-compliant militia members were--by this law--exclusively only able to be tried by other militia members.

Essentially, a system REQUIRING a general popular support to be used with the opportunity for jury nullification built in. Also, it originally had only a two-year life span.

The Insurrection Acts of 1803 and 1807 might be seen as responses to the times--including the Whiskey Rebellion--and are probably less representative of the Framer's initial ideas because of the "dilution" of the original members and experience. So, we can look at the changes--in this case, the allowance of use of standing Army and Navy as well as a much more general and less regulated statement about calling "into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion." with the only real requirements being to request the insurrection to disperse first and report to Congress after a period of time.

In general, the change from probable Framer intent to more "Government as usual/at all costs" appears to be a move from a highly restrictive and internally/systemically checked system relying on--essentially--the support of the Militia ("free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years", except ferrymen, sailors on ships, Federal employees...) and into a system with few--other than administrative--restrictions that include the use of standing military force.

Now, ignoring the writings of some of the Framers, this legislative action on many of their parts shows a really obtuse way of putting the Federal government over all of the people--even in an armed uprising--and really smacks of trying to weight the system into one only a plurality of the armed people agree to.

(Thank you for pointing that out. I learned quite a bit referencing this reply.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 6:27 PM    in reply to Deathbunny

Law-illiterate horseshit:

"I think you're mistaken, given other writings of the framers."

And what "writings" might those be? And if they aren't LAW, then they are IRRELEVANT.

"You do have a point about the Whiskey Rebellion being an assertion of Federal power, but the legal backing for the adventure was the Militia Act of 1792."

Get an education in ACTUAL law, or STFU. From the US Constitution:

Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.

Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: Congress shall have the Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Constitutional provisions are implemented by measns of STATUTES, in this instance the "Militia Act" of 1792.

By contrast, it's easier to make up self-serving shit in place of actually know what you're talking about --

"This allowed the Federal response to insurrection but limited the use of Federal power--possibly as a response to the Whiskey Rebellion--to situations primarily where the States request help."

There s no requirement that the states request assistance in order for the Federal gov't to Federalize militia.

"Secondarily, it was for violations of Federal law where the courts couldn't control it and requested assistance..."

The courts had no role in it, except after the fact when the perpetrators were tried as "common criminals".

"...but the primary instrument used by the Federal government was the militia--the people of that area."

Militia were brought in from outside Pennsylvania because the local militias couldn't be trusted to be loyal to the rule of law.

"Even non-compliant militia members were--by this law--exclusively only able to be tried by other militia members."

BULLSHIT. The Whiskey rebels -- to claim they were "militia members" is to reveal even more ignorance -- were tried in the courts as "common criminals". Several of those convicted were sentenced to be hanged. Washington pardoned them on the ground that they were mentally defective.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 20, 2009 3:08 AM    in reply to JNagarya

"And what "writings" might those be? And if they aren't LAW, then they are IRRELEVANT."

Federalist papers, the diaries of George Washington as he went to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, others. And--given the discussion was about INTENT and what they thought, those other writings are pretty relevant, especially given the Machiavellianism inherent in the art of government and legislation.

"Get an education in ACTUAL law, or STFU. From the US Constitution:"

Honestly, if we need a lawyer to understand the law, why aren't we simply locking everyone up already? Just a side point. The original Constitution was intended to be understandable by the educated, white, male of the time--otherwise, it's useless. Your presumption and tone are kind of funny in a way. We'll carry on though.

"Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions.

Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: Congress shall have the Power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Constitutional provisions are implemented by measns of STATUTES, in this instance the "Militia Act" of 1792.

By contrast, it's easier to make up self-serving shit in place of actually know what you're talking about --"

Okay, the Federal government could call up the Militia for Insurrections. Got that, but the militia was essentially the able-bodied men in the states, the "people" cited in the Constitution. Essentially, the Federal government relied on the people's cooperation to enforce it's laws in an insurrection. We'll go on.

"There s no requirement that the states request assistance in order for the Federal gov't to Federalize militia."

In the Militia Act of 1792 there was.

Go, look it up. I'll wait.

"Militia were brought in from outside Pennsylvania because the local militias couldn't be trusted to be loyal to the rule of law."

Exactly so!

So, in this case, the cooperation of the other militia--essentially illustrating that the Whiskey Rebellion was not a systemic or National response to an over-reaching Federal power--establishes the armed citizen as an internal check on the Federal government. Without their cooperation, essentially agreeing they were okay with this instance of Federal control--there would have been no way for the Federal government to stop the insurrection.

That's the point!

It's not that the Rebellion was successful, it's that the Federal government--at the will of the militia--was allowed to assert control.

"BULLSHIT. The Whiskey rebels -- to claim they were "militia members" is to reveal even more ignorance -- were tried in the courts as "common criminals". Several of those convicted were sentenced to be hanged. Washington pardoned them on the ground that they were mentally defective."

If they were able-bodied males between the ages of 18 to 45 (with a few exceptions) they were--by definition--members of the unorganized militia.

Also, Washington's instructions to the military forces deployed stated: (emphasis added)

" Washington's instructions were submitted through Alexander Hamilton in a letter from Hamilton to Lee, 20 Oct. 1794: "I have it in special instruction from the President of the United States . . . to convey to you on his behalf, the following instructions for the general direction of your conduct in the command of the Militia army." The instructions directed Lee to march the army in two columns in the direction of Parkinson's Ferry and suggested that upon the army's arrival in the insurgents' area a proclamation should be issued exhorting all citizens to abide by the laws. Armed insurgents should be turned over to the civil authority and the rest sent home. When the insurrection was suppressed the army was to withdraw "detaching such a force as you deem adequate; to be stationed within the disaffected Country. . . . You are to exert yourself by all possible means to preserve discipline among the troops, particularly a scrupulous regard to the rights of persons and property and a respect for the authority of the civil magistrate; taking especial care to inculcate and cause to be observed this principal, that the duties of the army are confined to the attacking and subduing of armed opponents of the laws, and to the supporting and aiding of the civil officers in the execution of their functions" (Syret et al., Hamilton Papers, 17:331-36)."

Even in his instructions, Washington acknowledges and creates limitations only oriented on the militia members and still returns them to local, civil authorities. The fact that reports of over 150 men were apprehended and only a handful actually tried--those armed, leaders--also implies limitations on even the use of what limited powers the government had at its disposal.

Also--once more--relying on militia forces under--nominal--Federal command.

Go, look it up! Stop using the wikipedia two-step. Hell, if you want them, you can even find scans of George Washington's diary from that exact period online now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 6:35 PM    in reply to Deathbunny

You leave out a reality of which you are obviously ignorant:

The states' militias were governed under both Constitutional and statutory law. And, no: "militia members" didn't try themselves. Such trials were conducted in accordance with EXISTING LAW, not the anti-gov't whim of anti-American assholes who pride themselves in being able to recite pseudo-law gibberish.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 20, 2009 3:11 AM    in reply to JNagarya

Read the Militia Act of 1792. Please? Just once? THEN come back and tell me what it says.

Thank you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:25 AM   

With all these fearful, ignorant f**ks coming out of the woodwork, it seems clear that the end of America is upon us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 20, 2009 1:36 PM    in reply to Karl Darwin

Especially when you feed their fear, marginalize, demonize, and harass the ones that are there. You push the people sitting on the fence one way or another.

The funny part is that you are afraid of them, they are afraid of you, and you keep antagonizing each other by declaring the opposite sides evil villains undeserving of respect.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:31 AM   

Well, thanks for that little 3:44 trip into crazy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:34 AM   

Let's see........... 9/11 Truthers, check; Crazy anti-taxers (except maybe for wild defense dept. expenditures), check; Birthers, check. All afraid for a loss of freedom thru a tyrannical-majority elected-dictatorship. My only question, where were these people for the last 8 years before Obama's 8 months???

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:41 PM    in reply to CityGuy

you forgot
smooth like a Ken doll, check

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 3:40 PM    in reply to CityGuy


nice to see youre supporting cheney on the 9/11 story - yeah, screw those nutjobs at FEMA that said it couldnt have happened that way. good citizen.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:34 AM   

People fear what they do not understand, and politicians often use fear to bend people to their will. The primary reason why our founding fathers put the provision that it is the right of all Americans to bear arms in our constitution is to protect the people from a tyrannical government.

Over the past century it has also had ancillary benefits, such as dissuading aggressive regimes from attempting to invade our country, e.g. the Japanese during WWII. Perhaps the liberal media should spend less time posting such drivel, and more time on learning about the history of our country.

Additionally, I implore people to look into how many of our constitutional rights have actually been preserved. I think they will be surprised to discover that only about half of our constitutional rights have been preserved thus far, so the government has actually become a very big threat to the liberties our founding fathers so vehemently wanted their progeny to have.

Unfortunately, so many Americans have become so fixated on things that are obviously the impetus for the intellectual degradation we have experienced in this country over the past century that they may actually share the same asinine ulterior motive as the liberal media. So, in actuality, twaddle such as “American Idol” frightens me more than a man carrying a gun in public.

Although, I do think it was foolish of that man to carry an assault rifle to a presidential speech, because it incites so much emotion; all wise folks know that rationality is thrown out the window when emotion enters the picture. Consequently, this incident may actually do more harm than the good he likely had hoped for.

What I hope for is that Americans would spend more time educating themselves, so we don’t devolve into a country with a more oppressive government, which is clearly what is happening.

All the best,

Humble Gentleman

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:51 AM    in reply to Humble Gentleman

Dont' count on Americans becoming more informed. I have been hoping that for a long long time but it doesn't ever seem to come to fruition

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:06 AM    in reply to Humble Gentleman

Really? The Japanese were dissuaded from attacking the US in WWII because of all the gun owners? This must not have been covered in my 20th Century history course. I think the teacher probably spent too much time on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and then didn't have any time left to teach us how the Japanese didn't attack the US.

Anyway, thanks for the edjucashun.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:46 AM    in reply to linus bern

He's probably referring to this made-up quote that gun nuts love, they attribute it to admiral Yamamoto but there is no record of him ever saying it: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

http://factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:16 PM    in reply to buckethead

Have you ever noticed how they have to lie about everything? I've never, ever seen a conservatroll make a cogent argument and then stick around to defend it. If pressed, they fall back on made up quotes that often directly contradict everything the supposed source of the quote has ever said. I wonder how it must feel for them to be part of such an intellectually bankrupt movement? Literally, they have no ideas and have now stooped to brandishing guns at public events in order to try to frighten people away from doing the right thing. They're monkeys baring their teeth and waving sticks to try to scare away the sun.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 2:08 PM    in reply to jagriff1

"Have you ever noticed how they have to lie about everything? I've never, ever seen a conservatroll make a cogent argument and then stick around to defend it."

"They" huh? Nice reference. How Republican of you. So who are "they" anyway? Are "they" anyone who disagrees with you? And "they"--these disagreeable people that upset your worldview--have never made a cogent argument in your presence? That doesn't sound very cogent to me. In fact it sounds pretty damned miscognizant.

My guess is--and I can't possibly know this for certain--that you surround yourself with people who think, talk, and act just like you do.

"I wonder how it must feel for them to be part of such an intellectually bankrupt movement? Literally, they have no ideas and have now stooped to brandishing guns at public events in order to try to frighten people away from doing the right thing."

Again I don't know who "they" are but *I* have plenty of ideas. You probably just wouldn't like them--and I certainly don't rely on phantom quotes from foreign Admirals who have been dead for nearly 70 years.

If pressed, they fall back on made up quotes that often directly contradict everything the supposed source of the quote has ever said. I wonder how it must feel for them to be part of such an intellectually bankrupt movement? Literally, they have no ideas and have now stooped to brandishing guns at public events in order to try to frighten people away from doing the right thing. They're monkeys baring their teeth and waving sticks to try to scare away the sun."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:58 PM    in reply to guy-o

Again I don't know who "they" are but *I* have plenty of ideas. You probably just wouldn't like them--and I certainly don't rely on phantom quotes from foreign Admirals who have been dead for nearly 70 years.

And I have plenty of ideas, too. So what? "They" clearly is a space-holder for the people who satisfy some prerequisite condition-- in this case, Conservatroll. Your "problem" is that you think "they" is sufficiently satisfied by any conservative or any republican, but in jagriff1's post, I think TROLL is a necessary and sufficient requisite.

Sheesh. I would hope that we can agree a priori that generalizations are always suspect, and that any speaker should be careful of mischaracterizing and prejudging people.

I *bet* that you know all different kinds of people... a veritable menagerie of humanity! And that this makes your better and more informed than anyone else... come on, bs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 9:04 PM    in reply to justperceptions

I'm sure you do have plenty of ideas, and I'm guessing they're valid. A primary objection was the comment that "Literally, they have no ideas and have now stooped to brandishing guns..." and painted everyone on the other side of the proverbial aisle with that broad brush.

So what are we all Conservatrolls or Libertrons?

The guy who turned me onto this site and that video is a Liberal, gay activist who voted for Obama and believes in his agenda. I'm a Libertarian and I think what this guy did was bone-headed because it was unsafe, but what's wrong with putting royalty on notice once in a while.

Talk about BS...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:05 PM    in reply to linus bern

You seem to be sorely lacking in this "edjucashun" you mention. If you were capable of critical thought you might perhaps recognize the difference in flying over an island and dropping bombs and putting feet on the ground. The Japanese never invaded california coast even though it was defended much more lightly than islands in the pacific that they did invade. Why? One consideration was that they would have to fight the entire populace.

I understand though.. Collectivists like you are much less interested in meaninful conversation or debate than you are at ridiculing those you do not agree with or trying to make snappy sarcastic comments.

Vote or no vote, when the Federal govt. begins to act in an unconstitutional way..even if those in the govt say that doing so is "constitutional" based on their "interpretation" of the law and in light of foriegn court rulings.. etc.. Than the social contract that is the Federal republic will be broken.

The principles of this nation are Counter to the collectivism that you all want now and that has failed all over the world. Call me a nut... try to take my liberty for the "greater" good of "social justice" and you better shoot first.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:20 PM    in reply to rufrignkidnme

"Vote or no vote, when the Federal govt. begins to act in an unconstitutional way..even if those in the govt say that doing so is "constitutional" based on their "interpretation" of the law and in light of foreign court rulings.. etc.. Than the social contract that is the Federal republic will be broken."

I am not familiar with the part of the constitution that prohibits public healthcare maybe it is not written in very explicit language.

Since you find the Constitution to be such a sacred document I can only assume you must have been utterly outraged at how frequently and explicitly Bush/Cheney broke it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:25 PM    in reply to rufrignkidnme

If the only thing preventing Japan from invading the mainland US was hillbillies with guns, what stopped them from invading Canada? Or Australia for that matter?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 5:44 PM    in reply to linus bern

They hadn't gotten to Australia yet, they were hung up elsewhere--namely China. Also, the most accessible areas for invasion of Australia by the Japanese were sparsely populated and not exactly rich in the resources they needed.

Also, it wasn't "Hillbillies with guns", more people had guns and access to them at the time in the US--especially being more agricultural then.

(I mean, except for black people. There were laws in places to try and keep them unarmed.)

Canada--on the other hand--if you look at a map, you'll find a relatively narrow potential invasion route on the Pacific Coast with American bases, patrol routes, and major bases on either side. Also, in many areas, the Canadians had and still have just as many guns as the Americans do.

As well, to manage a proper invasion would require a supply chain going all the way across the Pacific in an environment where the shipping would be susceptible to aircraft and submarine attrition. So, a successful invasion would require massive efforts to support, something capable for only short periods, and would have to produce results quickly.

Which is where armed resistance comes in.

Please study your history and geography a little better, thank you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 7:55 PM    in reply to Deathbunny

I'm sorry, but the notion that the only thing that prevented a Japanese invasion was their fear of the US gun owners is not based on any evidence other than the fact that gun owners enjoy making them selves out to be all heroic. I would wager that the fact they were already tied up occupying the most populated country on the planet as well as fighting battles on most of the islands in their region and therefore had neither resources or personnel to attempt to invade a country on the opposite side of the globe probably had a lot more to do with their decision.

Or perhaps your explanation for why they didn't invade Australia is also true for the US, "they just didn't get around to it."

(You know, I just noticed that you made most of these points yourself in a post to someone else, so I guess you do realize that there was more going on than the fact that Japan was afraid of US gun owners.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 8:33 PM    in reply to linus bern

Yeah. I think the Japanese were more afraid of the Soviets, which may be the reason for the delay in attacking the US/Commonwealth until after the Soviets shifted much of the Siberian Divisions to Moscow. My bet is, the overall pain in the ass to fight an armed people helped--read up on some of the Japanese actions in China, for example--but the biggest part was logistics * prob. of success * value of alternatives.

Or... The opportunity costs of invading the Continental US outweighed those for investing more in China, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 5:13 PM    in reply to rufrignkidnme

If you believe in the vision of the Founding Fathers, then you would recognize that you do in fact have recourse through Congress and the Judiciary.

I won't have to fire a shot b/c I know that our military will protect the Union from fanatic Revolutionaries like yrself. Our cause will only be stronger as you increase aggression.

Also, if you read the Declaration of Independence, you'll realize that it was after unmet grievances of several kinds and increasing severity that the American Revolution started, which are way more serious than having a public health insurance program. I guess you don't want the Interstate System then either, and you'll probably be returning your Social Security checks when they come in the mail if you live that long? You are an asshole with a gun-- of course we're scared of you.

The principles of this nation are Counter to the collectivism that you all want now and that has failed all over the world. Call me a nut... try to take my liberty for the "greater" good of "social justice" and you better shoot first.

You are a nut. Seek counseling. Start with the words, "I have threatened people on the interweb with violence if public health insurance becomes a reality." That may take a few sessions to unpack.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 6:06 PM    in reply to justperceptions

Um... as long as the State governments can enforce laws, the US Military is explicitly prohibited from interfering with US citizens by the Insurrection Act.

You also have to "hope" that the US Military doesn't side with the "Revolutionaries" or you may find yourself moving to a little land grant area in Nova Scotia...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:56 AM    in reply to Humble Gentleman

"What I hope for is that Americans would spend more time educating themselves,..."

Me too. That way folks might just promote honest politicians with a concern for this nation rather than just their own power and wealth and vote the others out.

This way, the insane need for guns and violence might diminish and these psychotic (paranoid) mentally ill, right wing so called Christians can be treated.

Won't happen, though, because this nation has taught many generations to act impulsively and get even with the bad guys (bad guys are defined as those people you do not agree with)... IMHO

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:30 PM    in reply to johnnydoughey

"Honest politicians"? Those exist? Where?

Politics is self-serving. There's a reason why our taxes largely go to war & corporate welfare...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:19 PM    in reply to Humble Gentleman

I want my government to protect me and mine from these men clinging to their guns like it's some sort of badge of manhood and courage. Where did all this idiocy come from? this isn't the wild west any more. Do they long for a former time when everything was solved at gunpoint?

This "freedom" of theirs is insane. They haven't the judgement or training to walk around with a loaded weapon. someone's going to get killed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 20, 2009 3:30 AM    in reply to Snarky

"I want my government to protect me and mine from these men clinging to their guns like it's some sort of badge of manhood and courage. Where did all this idiocy come from? this isn't the wild west any more. Do they long for a former time when everything was solved at gunpoint?"

*snicker*

You want men with guns--who are often scared to go out without them and who need a badge to feel like a man--to protect you from men with guns who may or may not be afraid to go out without them?

You do know that one of the more common traits of law enforcement and military personnel is strong religious belief and a surety that--with guns--they can protect the people they love, including themselves, right?

Essentially, the only difference between a newbie gun owner and a cop or soldier--who KNOWS and volunteers to walk into a job requiring him to carry a gun--is a little bit of training, more willingness to follow the orders of OTHER men who joined to carry guns, and a uniform with accessories?

*smirk*

So rich.

I swear, you really need to get down to the gun range and talk to your "heroes" and "protectors" sometimes. At least the rational ones admit they are the way they are.

"This "freedom" of theirs is insane. They haven't the judgement or training to walk around with a loaded weapon. someone's going to get killed."

And you know this how?

I don't know how much training--if any--that guy's had. Maybe somebody just handed it to him and turned him loose, maybe he's a firearm's instructor for the Navy SEALS with two or three tours in Iraq. For all we know, the guy could be a Secret Service plant. Those guys carry AR15's a lot, especially Obama's detail that covered him while he was a candidate. There were pictures in the news about them. The hardware those boys carried isn't so different than what the Blackwater guy's in Iraq have on in all the pictures.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:16 PM    in reply to Humble Gentleman

How about a little immediate education for you? The Founders had absolutely no notion of encouraging armed resistance against the federal government. In fact, they were adamantly against any such ideas. Check out Shay's Rebellion as part of today's history lesson. Daniel Shays & his rebellious farmers objected to taxation (sound familiar?) with a lot more reason than you and your gun toting friends, but that didn't deter GW from preparing to crush them like bugs.
But let's assume that the Second Amendment, in spite of its clear language to the contrary, was intended to enable armed rebellion against the "gummint". Just how long would you and your friends last against a squad of Army Rangers backed up by a couple of Blackhawks and remote controlled drones? Actually, if it could be arranged, I'd love to see you try! My guess: you'd soil your trousers!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

August 18, 2009 2:43 PM    in reply to Humble Gentleman

Oh, right, I'm sure the sheer size and power of the country was no deterrance to the Japanese at all, but they were deathly afraid of a bunch of jokers with hunting rifles.

Get real.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 6:38 PM    in reply to slb

Size and...

Um... these Japanese were too busy occupying China at the time. Before that, they had been fighting the Soviets.

I don't think SIZE stopped them.

Also--as to power--when the war started, about the only thing we were ahead on was Battleships. We were building up forces, but--for the most part--the Japanese military was numerically larger, better trained, and more experienced.

Not power.

Mostly, it was DISTANCE and OBJECTIVES.

The distance was too far to support without a quick win and their objectives were to simply keep us out of the Pacific while they took over China, Korea, the Dutch East Indies and forced Australia to Capitulate. Hopefully, without the interference of the Soviets in China and a credible Brit/French force in Singapore, China, etc.

(I mean, they already slammed through the Brits in Singapore and Hong Kong early in the war.)

The simple answer is "It was a combination of factors."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 7:46 PM    in reply to Humble Gentleman

Actually, the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment to give the southern colonies the power to put down slave rebellions. It was an appeasement to encourage their acceptance of the Constitution.

In that light, it's weird wording begins to make sense.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 6:22 PM    in reply to Humble Gentleman

You lost me when you stated American Idol scares me more than a man carrying a gun. About 14,000 men/women carrying guns in America caused 14,000 gun related deaths. Americans killing Americans every year. How many has American Idol killed in its last 8 years. Smarten up.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:35 AM   

We can't handle people voting how we dont like, even if the MAJORITY of the country believes it, we dont really care.... thus we can shoot you.

I

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:35 AM   

So, does that make capitalism theft too? If I walk into a sandwich shop and politely request a sub, an employee demands that I compensate the establishment. That's theft, just like taxes isn't it? Shouldn't I be entitled to all of that delicious goodness for free, just like the benefits derived from living in this country?

"No more taxes! And free sandwiches!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:33 AM    in reply to Stiggs

LOL I love these anti-taxers. Ok fine you don't want to pay taxes... Then stop driving on my roads. Stop going to my airport and flying on my plane. Your boat capsizes in the ocean, don't call my Coast Guard. Stop listening to my weather reports warning about a hurricane coming or a risk of a tornado. There's some zombie plague outbreak in your town, don't expect my CDC to come save you. Don't expect my FDA to keep your food free of disease. The list goes on and on...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:23 PM    in reply to gene1138

Yeah, and when you get old and can't work any more, you better go join the Amish..who take care of their own and have opted out of social security and medicare.

Too bad, you will just have to scratch by with whatever you've managed to save. Hope you stay healthy. And if you need cataract surgery and don't have the money? Learn Braille, dearie.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:37 AM   

"We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."

You know, I agree that the majority can impose tyrannical dictates every bit as awful as can a dictator. But THIS?!

All taxation is theft? Fund government with a lottery? Is there a serious libertarian that can defend those positions?

This guy is a terrorist.

No, he's not. Misled, yes. Delusional, maybe. But a terrorist? No.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:37 AM   

I thought we had an election in which Obama promised health care reform and raising taxes on higher income earners?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:39 AM   

Death to money-robbing sandwich vendors!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:06 AM    in reply to CityGuy

Al-Jareddi Al-Soobwaiya masterminded 9/11.

We need to take him down.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:39 AM   

These people are so frightened they can't even leave their homes without bringing guns and assuming at any point they may have to kill someone. Seriously, there recently was a tax CUT on the middle class. Are these poor fools ready to take up arms for the very wealthy people who will see a tax increase in the future?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:39 AM   

You (TPM) should look into your continued use of the term "assault rifle" to refer to this weapon. A commenter in yesterday's thread with whom I exchanged was quite adamant that the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Wiki, at least, confirmed his nit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 3:25 PM    in reply to Mike Drew

The AR-15 is indeed an assault rifle. It is designed to carry high-speed rounds, and lots of them, in order to kill or maim as many people as possible. The old NRA lie that all 'semi-automatic' rifles are the same is just that, a lie.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 6:21 PM    in reply to Bill Lumbergh

The original AR-15--a selective fire weapon--was an assault rifle. A strange one in the fact it was primarily designed to fire semi automatically with the option of automatic fire.

The current "over-the-counter" models are similar in function without the selective fire option but are also--courtesy of the civilian market--much more modular in design and easily customizable. For example, there are highly accurate versions amenable for varmint hunting or target shooting, some variations in calibers acceptable for deer or other game, as well as home defense or use on a SWAT Team. (Phoenix PD lets officers buy their own.).

The nice thing about the AR-design--given the modularity and usual caliber--is the combination of accuracy and ergonomics. Unlike many hunting rifles and most shotguns which can kick the crap out even a grown man's shoulder, smaller and less strong people, like some women and even the elderly, can handle the weapon.

So, essentially, you're whining about a gun that's able to be used by more people who might need it because it's not one built so only the big, strong burly guys can use it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:40 AM   

This guy appears to me as a complete fraud. I know. I might be completely wrong. But something's not right with him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:12 AM    in reply to tpmgary

Do you mean "a fraud" in the sense that -- despite the extremist things he's saying and the fact that he, you know, has an assault rifle strapped to his back -- he appears to be behaving calmly? Rather than being a sweating, red-in-the-face shrieker? That he, I hate to admit, looks and sounds like a cool dude?

If that's what you mean, then I completely agree. My brain is having a hard time connecting the things he's saying to the way he's acting. My gut instinct is that he's trying to use this rally/gun thing to gain attention for himself which he can use as a springboard to some kind of celebrity. Clearly, he had this well-produced video made and disseminated right after he appeared on the news. He's striking while the iron's hot. He wants to be known. And if that's his goal, he certainly appears savvy enough to know that doing things like this will help him get there.

But then I think: Isn't that cynical? To think that? You can't even be a legitimate crazy person anymore. Even the crazy people just want to be on TV.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:26 AM    in reply to itsallcomplex

I know, I get what your saying. But only part of it is that he isn't the cliche sweating angry redneck that believes the government only just started to destroy his way of life when Obama was elected.

It's more than that.

Perhaps it's that I get the feeling he's bought and paid for. Inauthentic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:53 AM    in reply to tpmgary

ala Joe the Plumber?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

awb

user-pic

August 18, 2009 10:42 AM   

He is Timothy McVeigh with 12 more years of Fox and Rush influence

This guy is especially despicable because he is clearly trying to use his race to gain his fifteen minutes --

I don't know but would bet he was on Hannity last night -

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:10 AM    in reply to awb

His fifteen minutes will hopefully earn him a thorough investigation up the wazoo by the FBI, Secret Service and everyone down to the boy scouts.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:42 AM   

How ironic that they're using Lupe Fiasco's "Dumb It Down" as the background music.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:44 AM   

Umm, how much more evidence do the FBI, Secret Service -- heck, even the local sheriff -- need to arrest these guys? The implied threats are there and to a large extent are pretty overt.

COME ON!!! Make an example of these crazies. SOMEBODY WITH THE POWER TO DO SO, PLEASE ARREST AND FILE CHARGES.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:14 AM    in reply to pablito

Heh, the local sheriff is Joe Arpaio.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 7:52 PM    in reply to pablito

Excellent. Then we can have them run a warrant-less search of your house and car, audit you, and tap your phone lines until you screw up.

I mean, we have to get the outspoken whackos out there--even if they don't break the law--and you can be next.

Just to be sure.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:51 AM   

My more cynical self would love to see a brigade of licensed shotgun-carrying Black Panthers show up at the next Republican event, and see how that goes down with local law enforcement. But my rational self is more concerned with the fact that it takes some other nut only a second to surprise one of these gun-toters from behind, grab their weapon and start firing. It was Timothy McVeigh who wanted to water with tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots, and he did just that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:06 AM    in reply to blesscurse

That's not too likely, these days - from what I understand the organization has evolved and the remaining original membership has different priorities.

Any similar such display would have to come from the Gangster Disciples or another such organization, which I think we can all agree might be more problematic, regardless of the magnitude of the pants-crapping.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:22 AM    in reply to blesscurse

Actually, he watered the tree of batshit insanity with the blood of pre-schoolers and office workers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:53 AM   

Uhhh that's what last November 4th was. You guys lost. Come back in 2012 and try again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:58 AM    in reply to gene1138

True that gene!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:57 AM   

This guy isn't a Libertarian. The real Libertarians, as misguided as they are, wouldn't have anything to do with him.

He's a loser He's a weak, lonely sad sack who's trying to convince himself and the world he has giant manly parts and must be feared.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:46 PM    in reply to Brazenly Liberal

Just like Real Republicans wouldn't have anything to do with the Birthers? These political parties are opportunistic at best.

Libertarians are at their core Anarchists driven by some weird association with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am sure that the FBI, Secret Service, and CIA are all very busy right now. I wouldn't be surprised to learn about some cointelpro later on. These are not veiled threats, but outright.

And now I know why I was blackout drunk on election night... hope not fear! i'll keep trying.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:58 AM   

This is truly frightening. The man is making many anti-democracy remarks and views the gun as the only solution to thinks he dislikes.

A tax for health care I can tolerate, because it is investment in the country and ourselves. The tyranny of my neighbors, however, is something that is difficult to fathom.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 10:59 AM   

I sent this e-mail to Josh earlier:

"I will go out on this limb and say it. Me, a middle-class, middle-aged white male (albeit a sixties-era radical): there is an obvious double standard today in the evident protection of the President. Where no one was able to be seen in the vicinity of GWBush, free speech zones notwithstanding, certainly no one was allowed within miles of the President, someone who was armed, regardless of permit.

What’s different now, and the reason I’ll say something that should certainly be outrageous? Barack Obama is a negro, a black man, a de facto second-class citizen. It blows my mind that these knuckle-heads are even allowed in the same county when the President appears. I never gave two shits for Dubya, but I sure as hell didn’t want to see him to get plugged by some barely-sentient 2nd Amendment fanatic.

No one should be anywhere near our President with a loaded gun. Period. Screw the 2nd Amendment. Period. Stop."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:03 AM    in reply to serge

I wouldn't label it as racism so much as control. People weren't aloud near George W. Bush because he wanted to give the impression of being a beloved leader whom nobody disagreed with.

Democrats have the strange condition of believing that everyone should have an opportunity to have their voice heard, as long as they're not breaking any major laws, and so our events aren't as tightly controlled, so to speak.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:33 PM    in reply to Constantine

These decisions are also made with a full awareness of the practical consequences. The Bush administration knew they could round up and detain lefties pretty much at will (as they did at the 2004 RNC, for instance), and for the most part no one would care. There would be little, if any mainstream media coverage, and maybe a lawsuit or two that would be settled years later.

Likewise, the Obama administration knows that if it treated right-wing agitators in a manner anywhere close to this, the corporate media could be relied upon to play it up and give "Joe the Protester" a platform for sympathy. And the right-wing blogosphere would simultaneously whip up into a "Obama fascism" frenzy far greater than anything we have seen to date.

It's just not worth it, unless there is truly a clear and present danger.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:22 AM    in reply to serge

I agree with you, but it would've been Christmas in August for Ernest Hancock, et al, if the cops hustled this poseur off the scene.
It was a setup from the word "go."


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:34 AM    in reply to chard

What I haven't heard really from the coverage of these people, is how close they are to the actual event? Are they in some perimeter area that is actually 1/4 or 1/2 mile away? Is the media just stating that they are "at the Obama" event? Just wondering, since if they are 1/2 mile away, that would change the perception. That said, these people and their views make me very uncomfortable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:54 PM    in reply to serge

Agree serge. As shown in Fahrenheit 911, it appears the feds were monitoring cookie bakes in Fresno closer than these gun toting nutjobs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:02 AM   

He doesn't want to be part of a representative democracy?
Fine - tranq him, throw him in a military transport with his guns, and drop him off in Kazakhstan after shredding his passport and revoking his citizenship.
The flights are already scheduled - this will involve the least waste of taxpayer dollars to deal with this thug.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:06 PM    in reply to kenga

Exile him. Take him 200 miles off shore and let him go wherever he wants. Otherwise, do an audit and let's see if this whiner ever DID pay any taxes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 7:10 PM    in reply to GregorZap

Dude! That's the President you're talking about!

I mean, he was--as far as we know--legally elected!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:02 AM   

What our country's mentality has become...

Person 1... What do they do in Palestine?
Person 2... This isn't Palestine.
Person 1... Not Yet!

Looks like too many in this video who oppose Obama are too young to remember the violence in the 1960s and how fast one spark can trigger a massive firestorm of violence!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:49 AM    in reply to lapdogs

Or the '92 LA riots

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:03 AM   

CCinc,

I agree. They're using Lupe Fiasco's "Dumb It Down" as the background music. But don't realize context of the song's meaning. Typical conservatives!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:38 PM    in reply to ru4862

Maybe he thinks it sounds all gangsta and bada**. :) Or maybe it's all a big joke to him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:03 AM   

They need to brush up on their history. I know it's three words and not one, but it was taxation without representation the colonists were objecting to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:12 AM   

There is something not right about this guy. He is almost jovial about what he is doing. He talks about tyranny, unfair taxation, his right to bear arms as if it is some lightheated subject. He is wearing a slacks, white shirt and tie. He isn't serious about his views (crazy as they are) at all. It looks more like someone is paying him to do this, he has learned a script and this is not coming from him. There are a lot of unemployed people in Phoenix. Could Freedomworks being hiring?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:13 AM   

Put'em down. They've threatened the President of the United States.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:23 AM    in reply to CranialRectalLoopback

I just forwarded this clip to federal authorities. These anti-government group are domestic terrorists.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:18 AM   

I think the PATRIOT Act is a terrible thing. But thanks to Bush it is now law. The government has a duty to apply it equally. If this freedom fighter with an assault rifle was wearing a turban, he would be in jail already.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:18 AM   

They just want to prove that Obama wants to take their damn guns away.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:19 AM   

These characters runs a Youtube page--we should report them to the federal authorities. They're domestic terrorist.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:27 AM   

since this guy thinks all taxation is theft, I assume he favors disbanding the military, since that's what a third of his taxes go to pay for (assuming he pays any taxes).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:31 AM    in reply to Virginia

I agree; this guy is way too extreme on his views of taxation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:28 PM    in reply to Humble Gentleman

I have tax clients who are now paying for their stupidity of many years. Working off the books, not declaring their income...pay tax? oh no!! Of course, now there's no records of what they might have earned. And when they get old? No pension. No social security to speak of. Only then will they pay for their stupidity and short-sighted greed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:26 PM    in reply to Virginia

Actually, interstate and international tariffs are okay. But you haven't really read the Libertarian ideals on international conflict, have you? Go read it and you'll see why it probably doesn't bother him much.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:33 AM   

4409 - How clever! - not.

IMO, one of these guys wants to be martyr. They want to be tested by the Secret Service.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:35 AM    in reply to Viva!America!

VivaAmer, You do agree these jerks should be reported to the federal authorities?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:34 AM   

its seems that although their is greater access to information in this information age, people will construct their own realities, and continue to be willfully blind and ignorant no matter what. what scares me is that almost of this nation is this ignorant. this narcissist needs an education, some self-esteem and some viagra.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:36 AM    in reply to seeta

oops, meant "almost half of this nation" if not greater than that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 5:05 PM    in reply to seeta

You like penis much?

You talk about it.

You interested?

I know a guy that goes that way. You can bring your Viagra and you two will probably hit it off...

You people are a riot. No, really!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:37 AM   

Clearly this demonstrates the need for universal health care, with a strong component for mental health care!

These birthers and deathers are a walking asylum!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:40 AM   

Have any of the right-wing blowhards on Fox weighed in on this? I would be curious to hear their answer to the question "Is it OK to bring a gun to a presidential event if you are not breaking a law? And if it's OK for a right-winger at an Obama event, would it be OK for a peaceful, law abiding American Communist to bring a gun to a Palin event, or to a Bush event during the heyday of anti-Iraq-War protests?"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:46 AM   

All taxation is theft? Guess he doesn't understand the concept of the Commons, where the taxes go to pay for items the public shares, ie, roads, military, etc.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:52 AM   

"We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."

Whaaaa?
Isn't that Democracy? I realize that we have institutions that protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, but this is insane.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:08 PM   

Is this guy rocking the "Falling Down" look or what? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_Down

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:14 PM    in reply to setb

I was thinking the exact same thing! Scary part is, I wonder how many of these guys agree with the character in taking the law into their own hands? We've heard the talk. I hope we don't see the walk.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:10 PM   

I for one am happy to see these idiots come out into the sunlight, instead of hiding behind a rock, taking pot shots. They have become the new face of the opposition and associated with Republicans in the minds of most voters. I don't think most people really want to turn the country over to them!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sbv

user-pic

August 18, 2009 12:14 PM   

dude, i hate to tell you but you are not the majority; in fact as orwellian as it is, you are the minority. let's face it, what these and those yelling and screaming at town hall meetings want is to nullify the past democratically held election where president obama won by an overwhelming majority of american voters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:16 PM   

I hope the Secret Service have a permanent watch on these crazies. I've been worried about our president's safety for quite a while, and now I'm just plain scared. No difference between these men who live with violent thoughts and fantasies and the Oklahoma Bomber.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 8:05 PM    in reply to Snarky

With the exception that the Oklahoma Bomber committed multiple Federal and local crimes, killed a bunch of people, and was convicted for it.

This guy is simply obeying the law, talking about what he believes in, and exercising his rights within the limitations of local and Federal law.

No difference at all. Just like there's no difference between you and--say--a Nazi sympathizer calling the Gestapo on a Jew or a Homosexual. I mean, except for that whole rule-of-law thing protecting them here. And the fact you may not speak German.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:23 PM   

Why is the media giving these individuals such a broad forum? In a recent interview with a photojournalist, they noted that when the anti-reform individuals were "asking questions", they were video-taping their own remarks. So yes, we know they are there and they are being supported by "grass root" operatives, but to give them national air time, isn't that just empowering them? Making note of their presence is one thing, but it makes no sense to give them a wider forum, leave that to FOX. It makes no sense to play into the hands of these individuals and their supporters. Time for sites like TPM to wake up and understand that they are being "played for suckers".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:23 PM   

I really wish they would give these characters an island somewhere and let them live in their libertarian "paradise" so the rest of us can have a decent civilized society.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:27 PM   

Uh, these idiots should reconsider.

Their previous Presidential hero put in all manner of Uncle Sam capabilities to track them.

You all now have a files, assholes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:29 PM   

I agree that this man should be considered a terrorist and the FBI is probably already following him and will be screening anyone he associates with at this point.

If it is okay for us to ban guns and 'any' sort of weapons at schools and in courthouses for public safety and the safety of children then it must be okay to ban weapons in public meeting places and at public events. You don't get to bring an AK47 into a baseball game, do you?

Apparently the secret service has the right to ban weapons for any distance that they deem necessary to protect the president and to help the crowd be 'at peace' so there is no reason that they should have allowed these men to present themselves this way and intimidate and instill fear into the crowd. Let's face it, these tactics are not just about trying to intimidate politicians, this is about trying to intimidate fellow citizens from having a voice and to try to wield extraordinary power as a minority.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:52 PM   

"We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."

You'll get your ass shot off, is what you will get!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 12:54 PM    in reply to GTFOOH

You beat me to it....

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:02 PM   

I think this shows incontrovertibly that these so called protesters are anti-democracy, in which, of course, majority rules. And yes these are intimidation tactics, taken less from politics than from mafiosi, particularly the TeeVee kind...

But to me the real reading is is that these are poor, dumb sad sacks who have never had any power to affect anything in their lives, and they are lashing out at what seems to them an easy target, a black man who just because of majority vote became their president. They look so utterly bereft of intelligence, friendships, and any of the other things that make life seem liveable.

Why? largely because they are poor, uneducated and easy prey for demagogues.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:18 PM   

Not a word about this in the Chicago Tribune.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:20 PM   

Many pix and some "insight" from one of the attendees (member of the same group as this "Chris B." fellow)...

http://bit.ly/GH52w

Downthread it is mentioned that:

We presumed that some ACORN nut might get perturbed and try to disarm him and take the gun. So, not trusting that such a person might know how to safely handle an AR, the gun was empty. However, Chris's G-19 was ready to rock, as were all the others in attendance. There were always at least 3 to 7 cops within immediate reach if something went down,...so we felt that for the safety of any idiot attempting to grab it, the item everyone would focus in on should be de-fanged. (But as you can see,...there were spare fangs at the ready.)

It's a strange world where someone can get jacked for a 2" Swiss Army knife in their pocket but walking around with this kind of heat is "normal".

We're getting closer to being a 3rd world country every damned day.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:23 PM   

This guy sounds like a black guy doing an impression of a white guy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:39 PM    in reply to jeffgee

I think the Chris is doing some kind of performance art. Or he's doing a parody. My first impression is the guy is not for real. Maybe its Borat doing an impression of a black guy acting like like a crazy white guy. Either way it must scare the hell out of some of those tea-baggers to see a black man with guns.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:54 PM    in reply to miles born

I get the same impression -- it just feels like it has to be parody -- that somehow he's punking them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:29 PM   

Could these guys be decoys testing and distracting the police and secret service away from a real assassination attempt?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:34 PM   

i think its all a fake. i think he is doing performance art. he's being as outrageous as possible to get attention. i bet he doesn't believe a word he is saying. its all a scheme to see how far he (and his cohorts) can go with this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:46 PM   

"We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote."

In other words "screw democracy!"

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 2:00 PM    in reply to illlich

The Judicial branch was created to interpret laws correctly and ensure that a majority could not trample on the rights of the minority. By politicizing the department and appointing activist judges like Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts the right has really screwed it up. Let's see how the "wing nut" minority responds when this politicized Judicial department fails them in their battle against an "unfair" majority.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:42 PM    in reply to illlich

In a word... Yes.

Then again, the United States was never a true democracy. The Framers understood that "one size does not fit all" when it came to government and they allowed for local and regional differences and control. These measures--differential representation in legislature (Senators vs. Representatives), the Electoral College, Constitutional restrictions on Federal actions, and other, later developments like the Insurrection Act and Posse Comitatus created a framework where no pure majority could do everything. It protected local differences and local control so people could create a legal and other environment close to home that wasn't onerous or restrictive.

What we've done--by tinkering--is start creating that level of central control so it's becoming onerous and people--who disagree with the majority or the PERCEIVED majority--are resisting as they should be and as was intended.

Peaceful demonstrations and (hopefully) peaceful voting.

See, not everyone thinks like the hypothetical "we" in people's heads. We assume--in the absence of other information--that most normal people do, but often that's a trick of the mind. Doubly so when it comes to people in elected power. We rationalize they think like we do because they agree with us on some specially selected and very loudly proclaimed points (while trying to play down others).

For example, the Peace protesters who voted for Obama. Many of them are pissed now because--frankly--it will be YEARS before the US leaves Iraq completely AND there's an upsurge in Afghanistan. They assumed--because Obama wasn't a Republican and he was "against the war"--things would be all better by now.

The gay vote--likewise--saw a liberal candidate and voted, only to end up with someone who's still pushing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" AND is against Federally recognizing Gay Marriage.

All of them and most of us (*snicker*) look at elected officials that way...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 1:50 PM   

"i think its all a fake. i think he is doing performance art. he's being as outrageous as possible to get attention. i bet he doesn't believe a word he is saying. its all a scheme to see how far he (and his cohorts) can go with this."


Hmmm. . . I was thinking along similar lines, but with a more sinister plan-- if they can get the public used to the sight of many many people showing up with guns, how soon before an armed militia shows up at an Obama event? And when there are enough militiamen to out-gun the Secret Service, then what?

Oh, I'm just being paranoid, I'm sure.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 2:15 PM   

What does '4409' mean? From the logo I'd guess it means something along the lines of "Let's Kill Obama [the 44th prez] in '09".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 2:52 PM   

"We will forcefuly resist making sense. You'll have to pry the sense from our cold, dead hands. We are uneducated and as stupid as sticks. We don't know a good idea from a bad one, a truth from a lie, or an alligator from the assholes we are. Somethimes we are so angry we don't know whether to kill or cry. In our hearts we know something is wrong, and we can't imagine that it is us. This president isn't one of us. Maaybe if we strap on our AR-15s will scare his skinny black ass just a little bit. At the least, we'll feel like somebody for just a minute. Then we'll go back to our trailers and tract houses and have another Bud, and brag about how we showed him. One day we're gonna have to shoot somebody, but not vet."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 3:10 PM   

Chris reminds me of that Dave Chapelle skit where a blind black man is a KKK leader.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 3:50 PM   

Erkle's packing. Everybody run!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 3:55 PM   

Idiot. There's absolutely no reason to carry an assault rifle into a setting like this. Bravado? Nope. A weak man with a vain attempt at being strong? Probably more like it. Bullies are nothing more than cowards with bad social skills.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 3:57 PM   

Why is it that crazies like this crawl out of the woodwork every time the Dems are in power?

Sore losers? Mentally immature? Certainly distasteful, but why?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:04 PM   

Did the constitution call for Medicare or Social Security? Know any senior willing to fight to give it up? Women couldn't vote, people of color weren't considered human beings and many people were property when the constitution was written. Katy "Awakened a Sleeping Giant" Abrams probably doesn't realize what going "back to the constitution" would mean for her as a woman. I am frightened because these people have no clue what the constitution really says, and they are going to open up something they have no control over. Sadly, their ignorance may hurt us all!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:49 PM    in reply to notthatstupid

It hurts me already.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:13 PM   

The Secret Service already establishes perimeters with increasing levels of security at various distances from where the President will pass by motorcade and from where he will be stopping. They need to expand the perimeter for people with firearms and prevent them from getting even to within one mile of where the POTUS is. Or ten miles.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 4:34 PM   

Chris is teh crazy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 6:11 PM   

come on guys! this is obviously a brilliant move from the obama campaign. this guy is a plant, a phony. it's parody. and it's perfect that he's intelligent, black, preppy, etc... but i wouldn't have thought you'd all fall for it. he's the democrat's new ashley todd...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 6:32 PM   

Here is the funny thing though... Let us think about this logically:

1. You are walking around armed at a political event where the President is present.

2. The FBI, Secret Service and NSA are clearly going to be using full video surveillance and face recognition software, running the scans through state ID and drivers license data bases to identify you and locate your residence...even if no one officially walks up to you and asks for ID.

3. You will then no doubt be subject to full NSA wiretaps, electronic location surveillance and records searches, bank, tax, etc.

4. So you accomplished what walking around with your AR-15?

Painted a big bulls-eye on your own ass?

You think you are going to become some sort of gun control martyr when the ATF shows up and seizes you and your guns?

Or is it more likely they will serve the warrant at 4am and no one but you will even notice you are in custody.

No right wing hero press appearances... nothing. You will be held as a non person at the leisure of your government.

Until 45 days from now when your ex wife did not get the child support and files a complaint with the judge in family court...

That is what I think is funny about people who walk around with guns because they can... serious people don't make a show of it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 20, 2009 1:29 PM    in reply to Problem Is

The question is whether this continues to be an isolated incident or the becomes much more common.

In New Hampshire, it was one or two guys. In Arizona, it was like twelve. If next time it's twenty-four or one hundred, the actions you suggested start getting more noticeable.

Then the question changes to:

a) How many people are you going to round up?

b) How many in the law enforcement community agree with "them" vs. "us"?

c) How well are you actually feeding the "their coming to take our guns away and put us in camps" sect? (as well as when might they upgrade to something more potent than rifles).

See, the problem with what you suggest is it's exactly what sets off these people in the first place! and you're advocating giving them their reason. Because--like with Civil Rights back in the 60's--you're going to have your Martin Luther Kings who get out their and be seen but--in many social movements--you also have those that stay quiet, watch the leaders, and react only when they feel they must and/or they can win.

Those are the ones you gotta' worry about if you set these people off.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 20, 2009 9:30 PM    in reply to Deathbunny

I am not advocating, nor suggesting anything. I am not locking up any one. That is your false premise.

I asked if they THOUGHT they were going to become a gun class hero if the ATF showed up at their house.

Those who show up at political rallies displaying fire arms are there as provocateurs to push buttons.

If you are for gun rights, is that smart or logical?

I don't think so. You and your guns were not even of the radar. Nobody cared.

But it will draw the attention of federal law enforcement. So what did you accomplish with that?

Your chance at 3 minutes of stardom on the Alex Jones show?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 7:49 PM   

I'm sorry, but the notion that the only thing that prevented a Japanese invasion was their fear of the US gun owners is not based on any evidence other than the fact that gun owners enjoy making them selves out to be all heroic. I would wager that the fact they were already tied up occupying the most populated country on the planet as well as fighting battles on most of the islands in their region and therefore had neither resources or personnel to attempt to invade a country on the opposite side of the globe probably had a lot more to do with their decision.

Or perhaps your explanation for why they didn't invade Australia is also true for the US, "they just didn't get around to it."

(You know, I just noticed that you made most of these points yourself in a post to someone else, so I guess you do realize that there was more going on than the fact that Japan was afraid of US gun owners.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:07 PM   

Wow, sounds pretty reasonable to me!

RT
www.web-anonymity.us.tc

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 18, 2009 11:21 PM   

you guys still don't get it. huff post has reported it was a sham, just like i said. but a brilliant one. parody.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 12:17 AM   

I am a strong gun rights advocate and even I can't believe this shit-for-brains. He might as well have been hired by the anti gun lobby. The best way to lose a right is to flaunt it. The Brady people should look up this shit-for-brains and thank him for his help in promoting gun control. Where is the NRA when you need them? Oh BTW, Wayne LaPierre, would you please stop spamming my inbox. I got the message the first fifty times.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 20, 2009 9:35 PM    in reply to bushwhacked

Exactly.

The people I know that are well armed are hunters and farmers... even hunter ecologists. And they are all discrete with fire arms.

Nobody I know would show up to a city council meeting with a side arm. In fact I think a couple of conservative farmers would tell them off.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 12:32 AM   

Shame that the commenters here don't understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment, to protect the citizenry from the government. It's so frustrating because I love the liberal blogs like TPM and the Huff Post, but there's no realization they are abetting the establishment. Very disappointing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 12:55 AM   

My question is where were all these "pseudo patriots"
when the George and Dick show was sifting thru their
e-mail, setting up our courts for one party rule, sending their kids off to die in a war that was justified by weapons grade bullshit, etc, etc, etc.
Check Please...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 1:29 AM   

Wow I cant believe what I am reading. I'm glad I dont vote for democrats any more. I got tired of all the lies. You know repubs are fat, lazy, uneducated, rich, racist, freedom taking, anti union, small penis, need guns for manliness, Oh the last 8 yrs were so terrible, blah blah blah.
Listen...you are being lied to. I know it is a shock. I was once one of you and I was shocked as well. Listen to yourselves. You are advocating that this fella receives a no knock warrant, audits, military raids on all his friends, and maybe even a secret service sniper's bullet for what...using his first and second amendment rights? Wake up folks. This guy isnt the fringe...you are. I will agree that his views on no taxes are not practical. The point is that spending is too high and taxes are too high and most of us are upset.

I'll sum it up like this. There are 90 million gun owners. We are not all timothy mcveighs. We arent looking for revolution. All we do is complain about trampled rights. However If the govt does cross the line with our rights (after the second amendment goes...the rest will follow)then we will get upset. If you think the military will protect all of you... (whisper) the military protects the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.... not the administration.

Well thank you for letting me vent. Remember if you wish to call me all sorts of bad names...that is ok I expect nothing different from your sort. It is almost like it proves my point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 4:06 AM    in reply to stew74

I won't call you a name, but if I did, I don't see how that would support your "point." Here's what undermines it, though:

"However If the govt does cross the line with our rights (after the second amendment goes...the rest will follow)then we will get upset. If you think the military will protect all of you..." You just threatened us, yet most of your post is about how it is supposedly ridiculous to regard you as a threat. So, I'm not calling you a name, but you have blatantly eviscerated your whole tirade.

And one more thing: Where on *earth* did you get the idea that the Second Amendment is going anywhere? The right wing fruitloops on the Supreme Court (yeah, I called them a name)just gave it the most gun-friendly interpretation ever in June 2008, an interpretation which you might like but which is logically indefensible as Justice Stevens naturally observed. The Second Amendment is thus being *expanded* and while President Obama is letting these threatening seditionists roam his events, we know from experience that Cheney would never tolerated any such thing. So it has been expanded in its administrative treatment as well, *by* Obama. So again, *where exactly* did you get this opposite idea? Finally, "Chris" in the video is issuing an explicit threat to overthrow the government by extra-Constitutional means. It's *his* words! No one said that you threatened that (although maybe you did now as noted above), but this guy laid it out as clear as day. He plans armed "resistance" i.e., insurrection against the Constitutionally valid government, and nothing less and he makes than vividly clear (and you say he's "NOT FRINGE"???. WTF?! So *what* did we get wrong, in your view? *Not* Timothy McVeigh? How is he not, and be entirely specific, please. And "Trampled rights?" What in the *living hell* are you talking about? *Who* trampled *what* in *which* fashion? Specifically?

Finally, Lincoln, Garfield, JFK, RFK, MLK, Reagan, have all been victims of gun attacks. *Why* is it illegitimate for us to be concerned?

I'm not calling you any name. But your post is sorely lacking.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 4:35 AM    in reply to stew74

"You are advocating that this fella receives ... maybe even a secret service sniper's bullet for what...using his first and second amendment rights?"

Who above advocated that this guy be shot? Got a quote? Or are those words yours only?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 3:39 AM   

There is an initial interview at nutcase headquarters where you can see Jesse Ventura posters and the banner, "VACCINES = POISON!" There is a later interview by Hancock and it looks spontaneous, Hancock just sought this guy out on the scene and it's a good-natured, "Golly, what brought you out today?" type of jovial interview by Hancock, who wears a light-green, plaid shirt and has a badge on a blue strap around his neck.

Is it spontaneous, though?

To answer, look at the clip back at nutcase headquarters, starting at around 23 seconds, and you can see Hancock, dressed as above. Of course he organized the whole thing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 10:45 AM   

Why can't the Secret Service extend the perimeter outwards to say a mile of an event that would allow no firearms inside that perimeter? Let them parade around far enough away that they can't intimidate others. That's their intent, I'm sure. It would infuriate them, but who cares, they are going to end up killing someone if they aren't stopped.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 20, 2009 4:15 AM    in reply to Quackers

Logistically, a mile's a lot of area to cover. Also, you're going to be spending a lot more money to bring the manpower in to accomplish this task as well as heavily disrupting business and daily life in most locations. As it is, much of the cost for security for Presidential visits come out of local budgets and that can really add up in places where the Presidents occur often.

Additionally, you might end up with situations forcing the closure of certain types of legitimate businesses at a cost that might end up going to court over.

You would also require more time to clear, search, and generally establish such a perimeter, further telegraphing the President's movements and--assuming an actual assassin was interest--possibly promoting a change of tactics such as a prepositioned device or some means taking advantage of the longer transit time across the perimeter for any reinforcing response.

Simply, it could be done, but at what cost?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

August 19, 2009 6:29 PM   

"Taxation is theft."

The Constitution, as framed by the Founders/Framers, authorizes taxation. These loons reject the Constitution.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 30, 2010 5:27 AM   

I'm sorry, but the notion that the only thing that prevented a Japanese invasion was their fear of the US gun owners is not based on any evidence other than the fact that gun owners enjoy making them selves out to be all heroic. I would wager that the fact they were already tied up occupying the most populated country on the planet as well as fighting battles on most of the islands in their region and therefore had neither resources or personnel to attempt to invade a country on the opposite side of the globe probably had a lot more to do with their decision.

Or perhaps your explanation for why they didn't invade Australia is also true for the US, "they just didn't get around to it."

(You know, I just noticed that you made most of these points yourself in a post to someone else, so I guess you do realize that there was more going on than the fact that Japan was afraid of US gun owners.)

kamagra m65

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on