protesters bring firearms to town hall meetings

[Farin]

@Supervike

And that´s exactly the problem:

The issue at hands is not the loss of personal freedom or constitutional rights, not about \"fascist\" govermnet plans , it´s not about gun ownership. The debate is simply: do you wanna have public health insurance. There are valid pros ( the uninsured 50 millions ) and cons ( the state deficit and the costs ) that are open for debate.

Instead i see the same strategy, I witnessed ( from my side of the pond ) before the iraque war: Bush, Cheney and Rice never said that there was a connection between Al Quaida and
Saddam Hussein. Instead they simply metioned Hussein and Al Quaida in the same sentence over and over again, day after day, till everyone had the connection in mind.

Now the conservative media is doing the same. Just watch fox news: They don´t say that Obama´s health plan includes death panels - they just mention it so frequently that the people start believing it. Same with freedom, liberty and now gunownership. And then the people go out and repeat what they just heard at the TV , and then FOX can report about the new \"grass root movement\" that fights the evil obama

Yep, it´s that mix of Hate mongering, scare tactics and astro turf that always makes me wanna throw up :cussing:

EDIT

@steelcult: Can you give me i link for that number ? All my sources say 50 millions.

and yes i understand you´re argument about the health plan of said political organs. But public health care shold be about providing a basic health care - vaccinations, dental plans routine physical and other mecidal necessities - other medicval services should still be paid by the patients IMHO

 

[ScottRadom]

I don\'t know man...

Just for me, personally, I choose not to own a gun as I fear I may use it. Carrying a gun just to make a point seems a frighteningly obvious start of a string of very bad decisions. Mostly I find the people who choose to make a point by brandishing a firearm the kind of people who almost HOPE they have the opportunity to use it.

I\'ve also never understood the fixation on the right to bear arms. I simply just don\'t get it. But, that\'s me.

And as someone said, why would you want to spend an afternoon KNOWING you were in the crosshairs of a well trained, well armed police or secret service sniper? Maybe THEY had a bad day, or a late night, and maybe they are gonna be the ones who make a mistake?

Also, I just don\'t see the point to protests period.

 

[Sand Rat]

Originally posted by Farin
@Supervike

And that�s exactly the problem:

The issue at hands is not the loss of personal freedom or constitutional rights, not about \"fascist\" govermnet plans , it�s not about gun ownership. The debate is simply: do you wanna have public health insurance. There are valid pros ( the uninsured 50 millions ) and cons ( the state deficit and the costs ) that are open for debate.

Instead i see the same strategy, I witnessed ( from my side of the pond ) before the iraque war: Bush, Cheney and Rice never said that there was a connection between Al Quaida and
Saddam Hussein. Instead they simply metioned Hussein and Al Quaida in the same sentence over and over again, day after day, till everyone had the connection in mind.

Now the conservative media is doing the same. Just watch fox news: They don�t say that Obama�s health plan includes death panels - they just mention it so frequently that the people start believing it. Same with freedom, liberty and now gunownership. And then the people go out and repeat what they just heard at the TV , and then FOX can report about the new \"grass root movement\" that fights the evil obama

Yep, it�s that mix of Hate mongering, scare tactics and astro turf that always makes me wanna throw up :cussing:

So, its astroturf if the conservatives arrainge it but if the liberals through ACORN or SEUII or the AFL/CIO arrainge for protestors, its the real thing?


And don\'t kid yourself Farin - the liberals use scaremongering just as much as the conservatives do - look at some of the anti gun movement for example, or the religion of global warming.

 

[Farin]

@Steelcult

I know , i know -never said that the other side is better or less likely to using the same tactics - i´m not that naive. Lobbyism and astroturf is a huge problem in many countries and are not a privilege of the (american) conservatives.

i´m simply saying that i would like to see real talks instead of yelling, and facts instead of fiction.

oh and global warming is not a myth - of cause telling people that the world will end and that the whole northern hemisphere can freeze within a few hours due the end of the gulf stream, well that is a myth , of cause

 

[BPI]

Hi SteelCult, you say \"Besides, if the plans that Congress and or the White House are proposing are so great, why are these bodies keeping their own independent health care plans that are paid for by the tax payers?\"

Good point, re. them being tax payer funded. Prompted me to post though as it reminds me that the arguement often seems to be polarised to exteremes...
A - everyone has the same state controlled care & is equal within the system regardless of what you want
B - if you can\'t afford insurance you\'re lazy scum, hurry up & die

Interesting article in the New Yorker recently that looked at half a dozen different first world countries healthcare systems. Both their current state/costs/effectiveness & their historical reasons for existing. Then applied a couple of them to the US as reforms. As I recall it ran along the lines of an expanded Medicare running alongside an insurance system not so dissimilar to the one currently used (regulation to point them firmly towards healthcare not shareholder profit & director bonuses). The thing that I liked was the ease with which it envisioned differing solutions running concurrently, it opened up my ideas a little about it.

And of course money grubbing lawyers of the ambulance chasing variety are sat at the bottom of the pit licking up the blood & pus, with most legislators being lawyers I don\'t suppose that\'ll change any time soon.

B.

 

[darthfoley]

I agree with the protestors\' stance, but not necessarily with the way they\'ve chosen to promote it.

However, with the fact that citizens have been shouted down and called \'un-American\' and \'Nazis\' by the current leadership, I\'m not a bit surprised that some of the angrier elements are beginning to growl more and more loudly.

As for global warming...yes, let\'s open that can of worms once more. Let\'s see how many scientists we can get right here on CMON to argue both sides of that coin again. lol

 

[Shawn R. L.]

With union goons showing up and acting like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqpfU_AC7Ls&feature=related] intimidation[/url] a little show of force might not be a bad idea.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

Aint saying no more...

 

[Farin]

@BPI

regulation to point them firmly towards healthcare not shareholder profit & director bonuses

Most Important Point. Kind of reminds me of the fiancial crisis - short therm profits becomes more important than the service they should provied to their clients

 

[Sand Rat]

Ok while it is not the original article I read, I will adjust my numbers based upon this article from the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124579852347944191.html

Even though legislation won\'t cover many of them, illegal immigrants are especially difficult to enumerate: Few raise their hands to be counted. Prof. Gruber estimates they make up about 13% of the uninsured today, or nearly six million people of that 45 million number.

45 million - 6 million (other sources list this number as high as 9.5 million) = either 39 or 35.5 million depending on the source.

Of the rest, some people are eligible for health insurance but don\'t know it and many can afford it but don\'t want it. About 43% of uninsured nonelderly adults have incomes greater than 2.5 times the poverty level, according to a report released Tuesday by the business-backed Employment Policies Institute.

39 million x 43% =16.7 million
39 million -16.7 million = 22 million

If we go with the higher number for Illegal aliens -

35.5 million x 43% = 15 Million (roughly)
35.5 million -15 million = 20.5 million

Not 46 million.

Oh, and according to the above article at its best, the Plans from Congress only elimnate 17 Billion from the uninsured rolls.

Edit -

found the original article

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/21/the-matter-with-myths

and an interesting piece that takes aim at the above from the spectator and reanalyzes the numbers -

http://westernexperience.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/46-million-and-8-2-million-uninsured-myths-busted/

Farin - I never said global warming was a myth - I said it was a religion (completely different - myths are stories where religions try to protelyze the unfaithful heretics and infidels) - global warming may be happening - but I really have to start doubting its human driven nature when Swidden Horticulture practiced 10,000 years ago is sighted as a cause of it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090817073502.htm

 

[BPI]

Is it possible to seperate out gun ownership issues, rep/dem differences & just say whether it\'s appropriate to stand otside a public healthcare meeting with a gun? Or are they too fundamentally entwined? The US\'s healthcare for the 21st century is an awfully important issue & it seems a shame that these same old shouting points are getting in the way of the solution. Certainly the UK TV news has had far more to say about political/corporate interference in what should be grassroots protests & novelty shots of a casually & legally armed civilian. Oh, & getting all hufty at foreigners critisising the NHS lol B.

 

[evil tendencies]

If some people in government are nervous about legal, restrained and polite gun owners openly practicing their rights, I have to ask why. To the best of my knowledge, these aren\'t extreme right Aryans or anything similar - these are common people who just want their voice to be heard. The only intimidation they offer is the same admonishment that our Declaration of Independence makes to all of our leaders: respect the people or else.

If this administration is scared of people\'s reaction to policy changes, then these gun owners should be thanked for keeping the spirit of our independence alive.

 

[Farin]

@darthfoley

Not my intention to open a can of worms - you just can´t expect someone majoring in enviromental engineering not to say something, sorry

@Steelcult: Thanks, but what strikes me as strange is the number of people who decide not to have insurance??? I mean comne on, even if you´re in perfectly good shape , with no familly history of any dissease or chronic illness, you can´t rule out accidents or a getting sick, so why taking the unnecesary risk ?

 

[kathrynloch]

Originally posted by Shawn R. L.
With union goons showing up and acting like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqpfU_AC7Ls&feature=related] intimidation[/url] a little show of force might not be a bad idea.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

Aint saying no more...

This is exactly the reason why I posted the quote from the Declaration. It\'s not that I think we should overthrow the government but that our forefathers gave us the responsibility to maintain a government by the people and for the people.

The folks in AZ had every right to protest and have a right to bear arms.

 

[slah]

Originally posted by Shawn R. L.
With union goons showing up and acting like this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqpfU_AC7Ls&feature=related] intimidation[/url] a little show of force might not be a bad idea.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights. In fact, if we make the judgment that our rights are being systematically violated, we have not merely the right, but the duty, to resist and overthrow the power responsible. That duty requires that we always maintain the material capacity to resist tyranny, if necessary, something that it is very hard to do if the government has all the weapons. A strong case can be made, therefore, that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms.

Aint saying no more...

But the problem is that this duty or right is pure fiction.

There is no ordinary american citizen who bears weapon in order to be able to overthrow the state. The reason people are carrying guns are either
- I´m a criminal and need guns to carry out my criminal ways.
- I´m an ordinary citizen who is scared shitless of armed criminals threatening me and the ones I love
- I´m a nutjob living on the militia farm planning and hoping for armageddon.

Anybody going against the state who uses approximately 1 TRILLION dollars a year on defense with an armed \"militia\" is in for a rude awakening, and because of that using the constitutions \"right to uprising\" as a reason to carry guns is... questionable.

That´s also why people standing outside town hall meetings with guns should be arrested for trying to subvert democracy. They are not using their right of free speech they are trying to scare and threaten people they don´t agree with and duly appointed representatives of the state. It´s basically comparable to what happens outside voting booths in most african countries.

 

[Niall]

Why are these people so in love with their guns? In England we aren\'t so scared to use our fists in a dispute

I think if they want to rebel so much about getting a new healthcare system then they should at least look at the facts.
This is taken from the WHO;
The United Kingdom is ranked 18th in the world of the top healthcare systems, the USA is 37th or there abouts. The American military is government run (a system designed to protect the nation) so why are they so afraid of a government health system?

I noticed this posted earlier;
\"if America had death squads like the UK\'s socialised medecine then Stephen Hawking wouldn\'t be alive today\"
He lives in the UK
I am suprised people as stupid as the american democrat party (i believe that is the one) are even allowed to continue. Oh I forgot that in the USA the idea of democracy is that you must be rich in order to run for leader

I think the main reason is that the American people are so brainwashed to hate commusism in all forms.
Lastly, these people and all protesters around the world should realise that a democracy is a democracy. If you elect a fellow who then does something you don\'t like, well tough luck - wait until the next election and vote him out. People seem to want a democracy but it has to be run in a never changing way that uses laws at it\'s foundation that are out-dated and silly!

 

[BPI]

Hi Niall, the Stephen Hawking comment (it\'s not a definite quote) is ludicrous for exactly the reason you point out. It cropped up last week as something one of the more rabid pundits on Fox News (I believe) had said. Exactly the kind of emotion wrangling that distracts from a rational understanding of the differing approaches to a future health care system. B.

 

[Farin]

That nonsense is from Investor\'s Business Daily

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019432.php

strangely, Hawkins has lived in England for 40 years and he´s sill alive - well maybe they overlooked him:drunk:

but the problem is not that we here know that it´s nonsense - it just takes one nutjob like, say Sarah Palin or Bill O´Reilly, to take it seriously and soon it willm pop up on poster, in newsparers, speeches and so on as afact - that´s one fun thing aboput modern media - noone even bothers to do research, they just googel and take everything they read for the truth



nice comment from teh link:

If Republicans and \"moderate\" Democrats approached the health care reform debate with intellectual honesty, they would be openly and forthrightly telling the American people that the USA has the most profitable health care system in the world and that their goal is to keep it that way -- that the primary purpose of the US health care system is not to provide health care to human beings, but to provide profits to corporations.

Gosh, I wonder why they don\'t do that.

 

[airhead]

Originally posted by Ritual
...
When that was written, I\'m sure a revolution was a feasible option (they had just made one). But, imagine today what would happen with the US economy if the government was overthrown.

Our government is designed to be overthrown every 2 years (the length of term of a member of the House of Representatives), 4 years (the length of term of the President) and 6 years (the length of term of a Senator).

Should that not prove adequate. Our founding fathers had the foresight to insure that the populous could indeed rise up and throw the buggers out.

Are we to that point yet? I certainly hope not.

But my Grandfathers fought oppressive governments in Europe and in Asia. My Father fought oppressive governments in Southeast Asia. My Son-in-Law is fighting for peoples rights in the middle east. (the history books are still full of wet ink on that issue).

The United States got in the position it is in by free enterprise and people doing the best they could for themselves and their families. We did not get here by communist and socialist doctrines - which is what a lot of us see the current administration pushing onto the populous: More government control in the banking industry; more government control in (auto) manufacturing industries, and more government control in health care industries. I said more because there are already volumes of rules and regulations in each of those industries.

We got here by people doing, not by government doings. Some of us would really like a government that gets out of the way of personal initiative.

For this administration to call me un-American to question his ethics and motives for rushing through some of the most radical liberal changes this country has ever seen does not help convert me to his cause.

For our legislative bodies to rush through massive social change bills without even taking the time to understand what they are voting on fills me with dread.

And the worst cut of all is for citizens of my own country to tell me that the second amendment is outdated.

The government should work for you. Not the other way around.

[/soapbox]

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by Farin
@Supervike

And that´s exactly the problem:

The issue at hands is not the loss of personal freedom or constitutional rights, not about \"fascist\" govermnet plans , it´s not about gun ownership. The debate is simply: do you wanna have public health insurance.

I\'m not disagreeing with you at all Farin....

The debate SHOULD be about Health Care...However, I\'m just referring to the topic of this thread, which has everything to do with Guns.

 

[Minicreatures]

I completely agree and raise a toast to you airhead! There is absolutely nothing wrong with owning and carrying openly a gun. I don\'t understand why this is a problem for so many people.
If YOU don\'t want to personally own one, or feel uncomfortable with personal responsibility, fine, that\'s your perspective.
In Arizona, citizens are allowed to own and carry guns openly, and only require a permit if they intend to keep the gun concealed. I wish all the states were like this. The people didn\'t do anything wrong at all, so I don\'t see a need to attack them or look down on them. They are still entitled to have a differing point of view.
Of course one person with a gun defending against a corrupt state will be ineffectual. However if the people have enough firepower to behave as a big enough check against corruption in government bodies, they will at least have something to back themselves up with besides complaining. And at that point if all you have to affect change is complaining, and ineffectual voting, good luck, and watch out for your impending trampling!
Not everyone accepts sheep status willingly, and that\'s a good thing or the wolves of the world would have nothing to check them. Just because someone owns and carries a gun doesn\'t mean they are a criminal, afraid, or intellectually inferior.
In general I find it annoying that the concept of carrying a gun openly (which is perfectly legal and therefore should not even be a point of discussion) is pulling attention away from the health care issue which is way more important.
I find it troublesome that a president would call the people out about it in a bullying fashion too. Gun control isn\'t the issue, health care is. Seems to me like someone is trying to cloud the issue with fluff and bluster.