Man with assault rifle attends Obama protest

[daniel green]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457652/ns/politics-white_house/

About a doz ppl carrying guns, including this guy with an assault weapon.

This is a tragedy waiting to happen.

[Lady_Jean_La]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457652/ns/politics-white_house/

About a doz ppl carrying guns, including this guy with an assault weapon.

This is a tragedy waiting to happen.

I think it will be a long wait.

[February]

[QUOTE=GO_People;13374781]Yeah, so. He was not doing anything illegal. He was carrying a gun openly, which his state allows. What's the problem? There were no incidents, so why is this even news? :rolleyes: Great way to deflect from the fact that OBama care is failing because the majority of Americans don't want it. And I would venture to say that 99.9% of people who carry guns, open or concealed don't want the government involved in their health care.



It was intimidation, pure and simple. Obviously they aren't equipped to battle with words so they resort to more primitive tactics.
I bet they aren't even educated enough to read the health care proposal, all they see is Obama behind it and that's enough for them.
Sad souls.

[February]

I am sure Coldwater would appreciate if you would refrain from posting duplicate threads.


LOL ! Mr. Poll poster.

[Great Dane]

Wow.......

[crocdog1]

We keep hearing how FOX went to court for the right to lie... looks like MSNBC just does it without going to court.

You heard right. Look it up on GOOGLE if you want to.

FOX claims to be "Fair and Balanced."

Oh, that's right. they went to court, so they can spin it anyway they want.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Really? Well, look at this. Could it be that MSNBC is LYING to us?


LINK (http://patterico.com/2009/08/19/msnbc-guys-carrying-guns-to-rallies-are-racists-especially-this-guy-whose-skin-color-we-will-now-proceed-to-hide-from-your-view/)


Curious to hear from the OP on this new piece of information. JMO

:rolleyes:

WOW, I mean wow. Has anyone else caught this?

[crocdog1]

I don't mean to sound unkind but hasn't every president elected been exposed to danger. Isn't that an expected part of the job? What's different about Obama? MO

Let's see.

Lincoln, McKinley, Garfield, JFK, assassinated.

Reagan, others shot.

I may have missed one or two, but you get the picture.

And, we still allow assault weapons and guns at Presidental events? Where is our common sense.?

Oh, I forgot. This is a basic American right.

If this be so, how come we don't allow people to go to airports or board planes with weapons? Why don't Americans have this right?

[Great Dane]

Actually, I recall yesterday...when we were under the impression the gun holder was white, that people said it was initimidation related....

Sort of like when the black panthers were at the polls on election day, busing voters to the polls....we can always make this a race issue if we'd like, or we can address the issue itself which is that a person holding a gun at a ralley, regardless of color "is" intimidating....

[Great Dane]

Raptor,

I'm not sure that people automatically assume harm...but, for some like myself...guns themself are frightening....even if they were laid out on a table and I was the only person in the room, it would make me nervous....MOO

[Mimi428]

I don't mean to sound unkind but hasn't every president elected been exposed to danger. Isn't that an expected part of the job? What's different about Obama? MO

You are ignoring the real problem. Of course every president has been exposed to danger - that is not an issue, nor is it debatable.

The PROBLEM is when people start carrying loaded guns to political &/or presidential events.

Can you honestly say you recall this happening during any other administration? I sure can't.

[Great Dane]

I can't either...why do you think that is Mimi????

[Mimi428]

Why do so many assume because someone has a firearm and chooses to carry it around that they want to use it to harm others?
The vast majority of gunowners are very responsible citizens.
jmo

I'm sure they are. But the people showing up with loaded rifles at political/presidential events are not my idea of responsible people.

I do not voluntarily put myself into a situation where people I do not know are carrying loaded weapons. I quit going to the gun range several years ago because while I trust myself & anyone with me to be extra careful, I sure don't know that the others out there are going to also be careful.

JMO

[Mimi428]

I can't either...why do you think that is Mimi????

I believe the militia groups, in all their varieties, are probably involved in it, somewhere, somehow.

The "tree of liberty" quote, the one that we saw with the other guy last week is very much admired & used by so many of the militia groups. And perverted by them, as in the case of Timothy McVeigh.

The strange part to me is that Obama did not campaign on gun issues, nor has he even hinted that he is looking to pass any new gun legislation.

No responsible gun owner behaves like that (walking around with a loaded rifle). They all know that sort of thing is intimidating & that is exactly why they do it.

[Mimi428]

This may be the first time so many are so concerned about a President who they fear is taking away their Constitutional rights. That is what this is about - not wanting to harm anyone.
jmo

You are welcome to your own opinion, but there is no way I can agree that carrying a loaded rifle is a response to concern that the POTUS (no matter which one) is trying to take away Constitutional rights.

We saw during the last administration how the 4th amendment was perverted - yet I saw no one carrying loaded rifles to political/presidential events.

The topic of 1st amendment rights has been hot for years, through all sorts of administrations (certainly during the Nixon years) - yet the worriers about 1st amendment rights being curtailed didn't take up parading around with loaded rifles across their backs/shoulders.

I don't know who those two guys were that have been in the news recently for carrying loaded rifles in & around the areas holding town hall meetings. But I would be greatly surprised to find out that they are not also members of one sort of militia or another.

JMO

[Great Dane]

If the firearms are in fact being carried by a militia, lets' say the Black Panthers...would anyone consider that racist????

I would, but I'm curious to see if that is just MOO or the opinion of others as well.....

[Lady_Jean_La]

You are ignoring the real problem. Of course every president has been exposed to danger - that is not an issue, nor is it debatable.

The PROBLEM is when people start carrying loaded guns to political &/or presidential events.

Can you honestly say you recall this happening during any other administration? I sure can't.

Maybe this is why...

Guns and Obama

http://www.examiner.com/x-6639-Seattle-Democrat-Examiner~y2009m4d10-President-Obama-is-going-to-take-your-gun


“President Obama is going to take your gun”.



:tongueside:

[Lady_Jean_La]

Today as President Obama and his family toured Yellowstone National Park, gun control advocates criticized the president for signing a bill that will allow guns to be carried into the national parks. As some on the left fume, it is becoming clear that this president has no interest in taking away anyone’s guns.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Guns-Parks

[Mimi428]

If the firearms are in fact being carried by a militia, lets' say the Black Panthers...would anyone consider that racist????

I would, but I'm curious to see if that is just MOO or the opinion of others as well.....

Are you referring to the NBPP (New Black Panther Party)?

I agree with the definition the SPLC has given them, that they are a hate group.

I cannot say that I have ever heard that their organizational structure was based on the militia idea.

And they are not even remotely connected to the Black Panthers of the 60's.

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Are you referring to the NBPP (New Black Panther Party)?

I agree with the definition the SPLC has given them, that they are a hate group.

I cannot say that I have ever heard that their organizational structure was based on the militia idea.

And they are not even remotely connected to the Black Panthers of the 60's.

NBPP are considered a militia .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party

and..

Anti Defamation League consider the NBPP a militia :

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Black_Panther.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=Black_Panther

[Mimi428]

NBPP are considered a militia .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party

and..

Anti Defamation League consider the NBPP a militia :

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Black_Panther.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=Black_Panther

Thanks for that link. Did you notice this part?
Political ideology: Black nationalism, Pan-Africanism, Black supremacy, Antisemitism[1], Anti-capitalism, Anti-imperialism.

The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center identified the New Black Panthers as a hate group.

I'm sure there is much more at the Wiki article & the Anti-Defamation League website than I was able to peruse quickly, but I still haven't seen where they claim the NBPP as being organized around the principles the militia groups claim.

I would imagine they are all very conscious of their 2nd amendment rights to keep & bear arms, & I'm sure they take full advantage of that, but it just hasn't seemed to be the foundation of their group.

JMO

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Thanks for that link. Did you notice this part?
Political ideology: Black nationalism, Pan-Africanism, Black supremacy, Antisemitism[1], Anti-capitalism, Anti-imperialism.

The Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center identified the New Black Panthers as a hate group.

I'm sure there is much more at the Wiki article & the Anti-Defamation League website than I was able to peruse quickly, but I still haven't seen where they claim the NBPP as being organized around the principles the militia groups claim.

I would imagine they are all very conscious of their 2nd amendment rights to keep & bear arms, & I'm sure they take full advantage of that, but it just hasn't seemed to be the foundation of their group.

JMO

That means nothing see, Minutemen

http://www.adl.org/Extremism/minutemen.asp

The ADL do not say 'militia' but we know they are...

[Mimi428]

That means nothing see, Minutemen

http://www.adl.org/Extremism/minutemen.asp

The ADL do not say 'militia' but we know they are...

Sorry, I am not following what you are referring to - what "means nothing"? Their political ideology?

I think we may have different definitions of "militia". When I use the term, I am thinking of the US militias that would fit this description...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government

Not sure what your own definition is, but I'm thinking it may be different from my own.

JMO

[IaNsSyAlNuE]

Sorry, I am not following what you are referring to - what "means nothing"? Their political ideology?

I think we may have different definitions of "militia". When I use the term, I am thinking of the US militias that would fit this description...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government

Not sure what your own definition is, but I'm thinking it may be different from my own.

JMO


Perhaps that is the problem I see it as

A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.

1.An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2.A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3.The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

[Great Dane]

if the kkk or the nbp do anything, it is probably racist imo

Agreed, but in this circumstance is is "not" racist because it was a black man at an event with a gun for our black president? Because harm was not his intent????

I'm confused as to why this is acceptable....had this been a white man, with a gun at the same event....wasn't the media all over this then? claiming intimidation etc...:confused:

[Len]

Agreed, but in this circumstance is is "not" racist because it was a black man at an event with a gun for our black president? Because harm was not his intent????

I'm confused as to why this is acceptable....had this been a white man, with a gun at the same event....wasn't the media all over this then? claiming intimidation etc...:confused:


Let me make it simple. There are far-right wingers who detest the idea that Obama is president and some of them carry guns to such events to discuss health care. IMO those people are dangerous and they should not be allowed to carry guns near presidential events. Some of the white far-right wingers who go to such events to express their hate against the president happen to be also racists. For instance, the "brither" movement includes IMO many racists, who question Obama's place of birth simply because of racism. It has been very obvious that many who go and participate in the right-wing mobs to express their "outrage" in health care town halls are also birthers.

[Great Dane]

To me that sounds like a double standard....:thumbdown:

[Len]

Len, how do you decide who is the racist gun-carrying right winger?

If the Black man is a Conservative, could he be a racist who hates Obama's whiteness?

If you're saying that White gun-carrying Conservatives are racists because they hate Obama's Blackness, then the same should be true of the Black gun-carrying 'racist'. Right?:confused:


You can not say, but there has been clearly racism involved. To me obvious racists are the birthers who go to these events. They only questioned Obama's place of birth, noone elses's. IMO the only reason for that is conscious or subconscious racism.

[Great Dane]

Len,

A LOT of people have issues with Obama....and they aren't all based around his race, or where he was born...will you at least admit that?

[Len]

Len,

A LOT of people have issues with Obama....and they aren't all based around his race, or where he was born...will you at least admit that?

Of course. Still, people like the "birthers" are obvious racists IMO. But many others have legitimate differences and concerns with him.

[Great Dane]

I can't say, because I am not a "birther" myself....but, perhaps some people think that he lied to get into office and they have a moral issue about that? I think often times when you have people of different races, their is always that speculation as to whether or not racism is playing a role...and while I'm not negating that it often does, I do also think at times that people pull the race card unnecessarily....IMO

[Len]

I can't say, because I am not a "birther" myself....but, perhaps some people think that he lied to get into office and they have a moral issue about that? I think often times when you have people of different races, their is always that speculation as to whether or not racism is playing a role...and while I'm not negating that it often does, I do also think at times that people pull the race card unnecessarily....IMO


Oh please. Why did n't they question the birth place of Hillary or Bill Clinton. Many far right wingers hate them as much. Birthers question Obama's citizenship based on pure racism (conscious or subconscious).

[Great Dane]

Again, I am not a birther...so, I can't speak on their behalf...but, I do not think that is solely about race....JMO

[Len]

With all due respect, Len, I don't know what 'they' want to know, but I do know that I would like Obama to tell us where to place the plaque on the wall (hospital) and which doctor will go down in the history books as having delivered America's first bi-racial Prez.


Obama has released his birth certificate that shows he was born in Hawaii. The birthers refuse to accept it and still question whether he is American and was born in this country. That is the issue. In many cases, that question is driven by racism. No one ever questioned whether Bill Clinton was born in this country. If they question his place of birth because his father was a muslim from Africa, then it is not necessarily racism, but it is still bigotry.

[Great Dane]

While I whole heartedly agree that racism exists, I'd like to share a story with you....

I hired a girl to work in my office, I really liked her during the interview, I felt like she had a great attitude, would be a team player etc....she showed up late at least once a week, she made errors constantly, her work was poor to say the least, she had issues "filing"....after a while and several conversations, she needed to be let go....having someone walk in after 9, when they are supposed to be at work at 8:30..is unacceptable....to this day, if you asked her why she was let go...I'm certsain she would say it was because I was a racist 9I have been told by multiple people)....If I been a racist, she would have never been hired....

How can racism be soooo strong in the U.S and we have a black president, isn't that a bit of an indication that we have moved forward????

[Len]

While I whole heartedly agree that racism exists, I'd like to share a story with you....

I hired a girl to work in my office, I really liked her during the interview, I felt like she had a great attitude, would be a team player etc....she showed up late at least once a week, she made errors constantly, her work was poor to say the least, she had issues "filing"....after a while and several conversations, she needed to be let go....having someone walk in after 9, when they are supposed to be at work at 8:30..is unacceptable....to this day, if you asked her why she was let go...I'm certsain she would say it was because I was a racist 9I have been told by multiple people)....If I been a racist, she would have never been hired....

How can racism be soooo strong in the U.S and we have a black president, isn't that a bit of an indication that we have moved forward????


Racism is not strong in the US. It just exists among some in the population, especially in certain geographical areas. Your example is totally unrelated to what is going on with the "birthers". Those people can not accept that Obama is American, despite the fact that he has produced his birth certificate and he is already president of the US. It is an obvious case of racism and/or other forms of bigotry. Dont compare apples with oranges.

[Jumbo1]

This may be the first time so many are so concerned about a President who they fear is taking away their Constitutional rights. That is what this is about - not wanting to harm anyone.
jmo

Ah, you seem to forget the precedent that was set by the last occupant of the whitehouse. The "Unitary Executive", where whatever the President does is legal because the President does it. Lie us into a war of aggression, out a CIA agent, datamine all the communication lines, disappear people off the streets & send them to secret black sites to be tortured.....anything goes.

[Jumbo1]

With all due respect, Len, I don't know what 'they' want to know, but I do know that I would like Obama to tell us where to place the plaque on the wall (hospital) and which doctor will go down in the history books as having delivered America's first bi-racial Prez.

For instance, did you know that GWB was delivered by a female obstetrician? Dr. Maggie Tyler, and that was rare in 1946, and the hospital has a two-page info packet detailing the birth and info about Dr. Tyler. Did you know that the hospital that birthed Jimmy Carter changed their name to that of his mother, in honor of his birth there? Did you know that the hospital where Clinton was born has since burned down, but a plaque is still on the wall of the building that went up after it? Did you know that Reagan was born in a little apartment up over a store, and that whole building is revered for the honor of having an American President to come into the world from there?

It goes on and on. Obama is the only President who will NOT share his history of his birth with Americans, and yet that history belongs to us and to our children now. What should we tell our kids is the reason he refuses to reveal his doctor, etc? Even if the Doctor is dead now, his family would surely love to receive the honor of being in the history books with the great privilege of their loved one being the first person to welcome Obama into the world. It is a great honor, imo.

Even if you don't want to know, I have to admit, I do want to know. If that makes me a 'birther', I'll wear the name proudly. He's a public figure now, his privacy is a thing of the past, and his history belongs to America. imo

Why do YOU think he refuses? :confused:

Why do you say he refuses?

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html?source=SEM-RR-google-search-birth&gclid=CICDzv6FtpwCFSUMDQodPXK9nA

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

[Jumbo1]

Really? Link, please?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Unitary_Executive_Theory

http://tmars.iwarp.com/guerrilla_campaign/newsletter/archive/06/The-Unitary-Executive.pdf

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1373182

http://www.pegc.us/archive/Unitary%20Executive/kelly_unit_exec_and_bush.pdf

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/CanExecutive_Branch_Decide_0923.html

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/

http://projects.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/060308b.html

http://kassandraproject.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/bush-lies-on-iraq-disinformation-propaganda-and-manipulation/

All of this is really well known & I suspect you already know all of this.

[fiver]

You heard right. Look it up on GOOGLE if you want to.

FOX claims to be "Fair and Balanced."

Oh, that's right. they went to court, so they can spin it anyway they want.
Actually the FOX appeal was to show that the judgement against them was invalid because the FCC's distortion policy is not a "rule" and therefore no whistleblower violation existed.

Interesting that the courts granted CBS the so called "right to lie" you mistakenly say FOX was granted.

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/778/778.F2d.16.84-1346.html

and ABC too

http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/415347

oops

[Streetdreamer]

Len, how do you decide who is the racist gun-carrying right winger?

If the Black man is a Conservative, could he be a racist who hates Obama's whiteness?

If you're saying that White gun-carrying Conservatives are racists because they hate Obama's Blackness, then the same should be true of the Black gun-carrying 'racist'. Right?:confused:

The brother with the assault rifle was a plant that was sent there by a news reporter.

[Barbara2]

Because you're a Birther, that's why!!

Actually, I'm more interested in his college records and writings at Columbia and Harvard which seem to be somewhat "under wraps".

Soon as a big stink is made about that Doofus Gibbs will invent the term "Collegers"!

:laugh::laugh:

I really don't like that word. Maybe we can come up with another one first and float it out there so he can pick it up. "No classers"?

[Streetdreamer]

My post was asking why Obama won't tell us which hospital he was born in and the name of the doctor. His book told us one hospital, his sister told us a different hospital, and Gibbs will NOT answer the question when he was asked. He boldly refused to tell the reporter when he asked for the hospital and doctor.

I just would like to know why. :confused:

Because he doesn't have too. Obama met the identification criteria to become president, he shouldn't have to provide further proof than any other president. Its kinduv like the 1793 law where freed blacks had to prove they weren't slaves, or be subject to arrest. If whites didn't want them around, they would ask for them to meet this criteria and since they didn't have proof back then, they were subject to arrest. Obama has already met the standard of proof required for the presidency just like every other president, people are asking for further proof because they don't want him to be president. It implies that he's not a "real" american or in other words "not one of us". The idea that he needs to meet a higher standard to prove citizenship is racist.

This controversy is beyond rediculous because it requires hundreds of people in on a conspiracy to hide Obama's birth location for 48 years as if they knew he would be president someday.