protesters bring firearms to town hall meetings

[uberdark]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

No, uber, I came to a conclusion about you after years of reading your posts.
All I am doing is asking you to step back, chill out, and discuss in a non emotional rational matter what you feel is wrong with what this guy did. To do so might actually require some deep thought. This is not a BAD thing.
I am not being rude and have said nothing that was directly insulting to you unless you choose to twist it that way.
Uber, seriously, dude. I mean this in no bad way, but you do tend to get rather emotional ( I\'m saying this after years of discussing things in this very forum) and it\'s hard to have a rational discussion with people who don\'t want to have a discussion but rather rant.

I am attacking no one, as both you and Dr.evilmonkey are the ones who started using comments like \"idiotic, bollocks\" and generally dismissing all views other than your own.

Lumping all other into groups? Pot calling kettle, come in kettle.
Did we not hear that for eight years while GW was in office?

As to your emails I did not know you had sent any, my browser here at work does not allow pop ups.

ok dave... you are assuming i am fuming right now and cant handle things. your right i am at home right now yellign and screaming and pulling out my hair at the audacity of you.

right

yes over the years i have gotten emotional at thigns.... because i have many views and find myself to be emotionally charged on many things. that is why this summer i just flat out stopped answering these threads because i was tired of the gloom and doom from people and wanted to just enjoy life and minis. then i read this article that caused me to bring up this thread topic.

as for my feelings on this guy....i have already discussed this earlier and earlier and oh yeah earlier. but yet again i will say this.


this is not the way to go about making a statement. by brandishing a gun at a town hall event is wrong. imo. this only shows a person that has no other way to express his opinion but instead uses something that can be used as a fear to scare people into seeing what they think is wrong. this is not the way to get ones point across. and i already posted this god knows how many posts back.

as for guns.... i dont care about them. sure i dont like em\' but you are more than welcoem to tote your guns in the back of your truck. my dad does and i have no problem with that. its just using a gun at a rally to instill fear is not my idea of a good idea. its crass...aqnd personally i believe shows his intellect... you know the whole me have bigger club, me boss mentality. then again that worked for the orks. so who knows. but stop giving me advice on how to look at myself and stop telling me to chill out when i wasn\'t even pissed off in the first place. you will undoubtedly find a million holes in what i am saying and yet again tell me i am wrong. which is in your nature and what i have observed from you over the years. sometimes emotion though is more important than intellect...

 

[Evil Dave]

@DrEvilmonki: Saying what I believe, and actively doing something or infringing on people\'s rights are two different things.

For Example:
You may choose to hit yourself in the gonads with a hammer. I will not stop you. I will fight anyone who tries to take away that right.
I will, however, call you an idiot if you actually do it.

In a way you\'re right, I really don\'t care to much about opinions, I will listen to them, I may or may not ponder them, i will disagree with you if I believe your opinion to be wrong.
I will not violate your right to say them though.

You\'re right, Rights do have limitations, but it is for the people and/or states to decide what those limitations are.

The point is I don\'t have to come up with an argument.
The guy broke no laws, he infringed upon no one else\'s rights.
There is no story. There is no reason to argue.
I am merely trying to figure out why the hubbub about someone who did absolutely nothing wrong.
Was it dumb, probably, I\'ll concede to that.
Was anyone in danger, obviously not because this event happened a week ago and no one was hurt.
So what pray tell is the big deal?

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by uberdark
ok dave... you are assuming i am fuming right now and cant handle things. your right i am at home right now yellign and screaming and pulling out my hair at the audacity of you.

right

I am assuming nothing. I am merely stating my position to avoid hard feelings.
I don\'t hold grudges on these discussions why should I assume you do?

this is not the way to go about making a statement. by brandishing a gun at a town hall event is wrong. imo. this only shows a person that has no other way to express his opinion but instead uses something that can be used as a fear to scare people into seeing what they think is wrong. this is not the way to get ones point across.

Good. Now my question is this:
What makes a well dressed man, calmly standing, with a rifle strapped to his back intimidating and/or scary?
Honestly, this is what throws me off about the whole discussion because I wouldn\'t blink at this in my home state, I\'d be willing to bet many others from southern states with heavy hunting wouldn\'t either.

Edit: I take that back, the well dressed part might cause me to look twice, but after seeing the police on the scene fully aware of the situation, I wouldn\'t worry too much.

Had he been in camouflage I would have merely assumed he had come from the field from hunting and had carried his gun so it would not get stolen from his truck.

 

[uberdark]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by uberdark
ok dave... you are assuming i am fuming right now and cant handle things. your right i am at home right now yellign and screaming and pulling out my hair at the audacity of you.

right

I am assuming nothing. I am merely stating my position to avoid hard feelings.
I don\'t hold grudges on these discussions why should I assume you do?

this is not the way to go about making a statement. by brandishing a gun at a town hall event is wrong. imo. this only shows a person that has no other way to express his opinion but instead uses something that can be used as a fear to scare people into seeing what they think is wrong. this is not the way to get ones point across.

Good. Now my question is this:
What makes a well dressed man, calmly standing, with a rifle strapped to his back intimidating and/or scary?
Honestly, this is what throws me off about the whole discussion because I wouldn\'t blink at this in my home state, I\'d be willing to bet many others from southern states with heavy hunting wouldn\'t either.

for the first time i feel we are going away from a bitchfest. thank you. why would that intimidate me. thats a gun... agun kills. you say an ar- 15 isnt an assault rifle. not a true assault rifle. oh but what does it begin with AR...hmmm wonder what that stands for.

plain and simple it bugs me....it seems wrong to me and yes fear is being used to sell an opinnion. you might not be scared by that. hell half the south might not.... i dont know... but plain and simple we are not all the same. i dont see it that way. i see it as wrong and a bit scary. plain and simple. guns are as i said before used for killing and killing. thats pretty much it. stick a fork in me i am done. lol

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by uberdark
for the first time i feel we are going away from a bitchfest. thank you. why would that intimidate me. thats a gun... agun kills. you say an ar- 15 isnt an assault rifle. not a true assault rifle. oh but what does it begin with AR...hmmm wonder what that stands for.

ARmalite model 15 lol

plain and simple it bugs me....it seems wrong to me and yes fear is being used to sell an opinnion. you might not be scared by that. hell half the south might not.... i dont know... but plain and simple we are not all the same. i dont see it that way. i see it as wrong and a bit scary. plain and simple. guns are as i said before used for killing and killing. thats pretty much it. stick a fork in me i am done. lol

So you do see what I mean, right?
You find it a bit scary, so the intimidation factor of the gun is largely in part because of how you view it.
I\'ve grown up with guns all my life, so I find nothing intimidating about it at all.
So to use it as a tool for fear in itself is really dependent upon the people there, which I would assume, in Arizona, an open carry State, seeing someone with a gun is probably pretty common.

Oh, the AR-15 (and the M-16) for that matter, were not designed to kill.
They certainly do kill if it is a well placed shot, but the small caliber and the tumbling action of the bullet (not sure if the tumbling is a feature on the AR-15, but it is a definite design on the M-16) causes the bullet to smash bone but doing very little hydrostatic shock (that\'s what really kills ya).
In essence, the AR-15, and it\'s like are designed specifically to wound, as on the battlefield a dead man is merely one guy down, a wounded man requires another man to take care of him while still draining the same amount of the enemy\'s resources (and more)
Just a little information there, the military is far more interested in winning battles than killing people.

Edit: Also, Conservatives would probably be the first to report an assassination attempt. We\'re far more terrified of the Biden/Pelosi combo than Obama.lol

 

[uberdark]

Originally posted by Evil Dave

Originally posted by uberdark
for the first time i feel we are going away from a bitchfest. thank you. why would that intimidate me. thats a gun... agun kills. you say an ar- 15 isnt an assault rifle. not a true assault rifle. oh but what does it begin with AR...hmmm wonder what that stands for.

ARmalite model 15 lol

well that\'ll learn me. lol...my buddy in the military and i were talking earlier and he said it stood for assault rifle. after looking it up on wikipedia i see that it stands for armalite. ooops sorry. haha. as for the gun though...its pretty damn close to killy beyond killy. but it is still semi=automatic and i still dont agree with those types of guns. imho thats just too much.

and growing up in a home with guns all my life i am quite used to seeing them...but carrying a gun at a town hall meeting just seems pointless to me. he wasnt carrying it for protection.... he was making a statement... he said he was against healthcare reform. oh thats a brilliant way to say your against healthcare, by brandishing a gun. you know if a guy holds a gun to my head (which has happened before) im gonna listen. no he didnt put it into anyones head but his intentions were just stupid and ludicrous. carry the gun in other places for all i care. but at a town hall meeting with the president...come the f on.

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by uberdark
and growing up in a home with guns all my life i am quite used to seeing them...but carrying a gun at a town hall meeting just seems pointless to me. he wasnt carrying it for protection.... he was making a statement... he said he was against healthcare reform. oh thats a brilliant way to say your against healthcare, by brandishing a gun. you know if a guy holds a gun to my head (which has happened before) im gonna listen. no he didnt put it into anyones head but his intentions were just stupid and ludicrous.

Is it though?
75% of the population was against the bailout, congress, who is supposed to represent us, did it anyway. (Unconstitutionally, I might add, not even with the fact they do not legally have the power, but all Spending bills are to begin in the House, it specifically states so in the Constitution. The House Bill failed, so the Senate started another one, which is against the rules.)
The riotousness of the town hall meetings does seem to be getting our representatives nervous though, and they damn well should be.
I predict if the job market keeps collapsing, if inflation hits, people bringing guns to town hall meetings are going to be the least of their worries.

 

[daddyo]

from what i understand, the man carrying the pistol did not go inside the meeting. a lot of noise was made about this, because the american press is deathly afraid of any form of firearm.

gentle sirs and madam, i respect your right to say anything you want - even if i disagree, and will defend it to the death.

i keep guns in my home, for defense as well as hunting tools. i have a carry permit, issued by the state, that allows me to carry a concealed weapon. this is for protection from the nutjobs that threaten me and mine. my pistol doesn\'t go into certain places (banks, schools, etc) because it is against the rules.

if i don\'t protect myself, who\'s going to do it for me? johnny law is on the other side of town.

sorry for being all over the place with this.
my point is that nobody did anything illegal. nobody got hurt. the press got it\'s panties in a wad over it. would they have been so excited over a baseball bat? or a frying pan?

oh- and one more aside: my 3-banded enfield rifle (.58 cal black powder) was the assault rifle of it\'s day (1858), being able with a skilled operator to put out an awesome 3 rounds per minute. and accurate to 300 meters. and just as fun as my barrett m82-6 (.50 cal 1500 meters). an assault rifle doesn\'t necessarily mean semi-automatic.

 

[green stuff]

Message original : airhead
The police do not have an obligation to protect you.

Excuse me??? ?

What other function are they supposed to have that is higher than protecting the civilians?

Isn\'t the US police\'s moto : \"To protect and to serve\"? Or is that just worth on TV?

 

[Amazon warrior]

Originally posted by green stuff

Message original : airhead
The police do not have an obligation to protect you.

Excuse me??? ?

What other function are they supposed to have that is higher than protecting the civilians?

Isn\'t the US police\'s moto : \"To protect and to serve\"? Or is that just worth on TV?

Maybe they\'re just for decoration....

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by green stuff

Message original : airhead
The police do not have an obligation to protect you.

Excuse me??? ?

What other function are they supposed to have that is higher than protecting the civilians?

Isn\'t the US police\'s moto : \"To protect and to serve\"? Or is that just worth on TV?

A while back the courts decided that the police\'s job was to solve crimes and prosecute criminals, not actively protect people.

My guess is this is for various reasons, people suing for no police being around when a crime was committed, the police themselves being reluctant to go into high crime areas at night, etc.

In some areas the police are nothing more than tax collectors with uniforms and guns, and with the recession on have been making more money for the cities by writing more traffic tickets/parking fines.

Mind you, this is not everywhere, and I\'m not dogging the police, but as in everything there are are people who are really good at their job and are dedicated to it, and then there are those that really, really suck. It\'s a lot more noticeable when a policeman really sucks at his job.
But, I believe if we actually paid policemen a decent salary we could be a little more selective about who we let become one.
As it is now, almost every cop I know has to moonlight as security in other areas to make ends meet.
According to my cop buddy, Baton Rouge PD, he makes $30,000 a year.

 

[wiccanpony]

Evil Dave\'s comment on Baton Rouge PD salaries, peaked my curiosity to go look up San Diego\'s ...$39,000 but not sure if that\'s a “beat” or desk officer? But I do know we are one of the lowest pay scales in the State.


http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Police-Officer-l-San-Diego,-CA.html

 

[Evil Dave]

Originally posted by wiccanpony
Evil Dave\'s comment on Baton Rouge PD salaries, peaked my curiosity to go look up San Diego\'s ...$39,000 but not sure if that\'s a “beat” or desk officer? But I do know we are one of the lowest pay scales in the State.


http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Police-Officer-l-San-Diego,-CA.html

According to my friend, it varies from state to state, city to city, and crime rates in the city. New Orleans PD has a higher salary than Baton Rouge.
Chicago cops also make pretty good money.
(You also have to account for cost of living as well, in San Diego $39,000 is crap.)

But the point is, would you put your life at risk, risk orphaning your children, for ~$35,000 a year, or would you just sit back and mop up the mess?
There\'s a reason underwater welders and high rise construction workers make good money, it\'s dangerous.

 

[skeeve]

Originally posted by wiccanpony
Evil Dave\'s comment on Baton Rouge PD salaries, peaked my curiosity to go look up San Diego\'s ...$39,000 but not sure if that\'s a “beat” or desk officer? But I do know we are one of the lowest pay scales in the State.


http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Police-Officer-l-San-Diego,-CA.html

NYC starting salary for a police officer is 35K. Yes, you can live on this in NYC IF you are willing to live off Manhattan and you are single.

 

[green stuff]

Message original : Evil Dave
A while back the courts decided that the police\'s job was to solve crimes and prosecute criminals, not actively protect people.

My guess is this is for various reasons, people suing for no police being around when a crime was committed, the police themselves being reluctant to go into high crime areas at night, etc.

Thanks for the explaination Dave. How did people react to this? I find it a bit odd that the judges had their word on it. I would have expected the legislators to take the decision. Or is this not \"official\" and more a general consensus?

 

[Dragonsreach]

Originally posted by green stuff

Message original : Evil Dave
A while back the courts decided that the police\'s job was to solve crimes and prosecute criminals, not actively protect people.

My guess is this is for various reasons, people suing for no police being around when a crime was committed, the police themselves being reluctant to go into high crime areas at night, etc.

Thanks for the explaination Dave. How did people react to this? I find it a bit odd that the judges had their word on it. I would have expected the legislators to take the decision. Or is this not \"official\" and more a general consensus?

Cedric:
As I understand it; (and I could be well off base here)in American legislature the courts are the first stage in defining the legal process & rights.
Which is how the Miranda process of having your rights read to you when placed under arrest came to be used, when the courts found that the rights hadn\'t been fully or clearly explained at the arresting process.

But I\'m open to correction on my understanding.

 

[airhead]

Originally posted by green stuff

Message original : airhead
The police do not have an obligation to protect you.

Excuse me??? ?

What other function are they supposed to have that is higher than protecting the civilians?

Isn\'t the US police\'s motto : \"To protect and to serve\"? Or is that just worth on TV?

The police have a duty \"to protect and to serve\" the general population, not the individual.

You have no redress to the local law enforcement agency for you getting robbed, mugged or any other bad thing happening to you by a bad person. The police are not your personal body guards.

The police\'s main duty is to fill out the reports then go try to catch the bad guy - all after the fact.

This was held up in the SCOTUS in Castle Rock Co vs. Gonzales 04-278: where the supreme court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of a court restraining order against her husband.

****

My guns? I have several, some just because they are fun to shoot, some to hunt. One or two I wear most of the time. If you\'ve ever met me (several have here) my guess is you wouldn\'t know if I had one on me or not.

****

The young (black) man in question lives in an open carry state. That means it is legal for him to openly display that he is armed at any place that it is legal for him to carry. Actually inside the President\'s Town Hall meeting is not one of those places as the U.S. government has said so. The man in our discussions had no intention of entering the President\'s meeting room.

His intentions? I don\'t know. If they were to get people talking about the second amendment, he succeeded - for good or for bad.

Had I met him, yea, I probably would have commented on his choice of weapons.

The church stuff is news to me... got a link?

 

[green stuff]

@Dave and Arihead :
I think what strikes me the most is the interpretation of the word \"duty\". In french, it can be understood in two ways :

1) an obligation : it\'s a duty that I must aim to accomplish but that I can \"dimiss\" if physically impossible to accomplish (ex : I see somebody in danger, but can\'t help them because a river of lava is between us, ...);
2) a constraint : a force that I cannot physically escape (ex : if I do not pay my taxes, the State can come to my house and take whatever needed to cover the debt (not the best example, but used for \"normal\" law abiding citizens )).

The first interpretation is applied in France with a \"mistake tolerance\" (3% of deaths (among civilians and the police) if I recall correctly for the GIGN (equivalent of the SWAT teams)).

I\'m just stating it for info, and not meaning that it\'s better over here .

 

[airhead]

I\'m talking in the terms of \"obligation\" not \"tax\".

2 a : obligatory tasks, conduct, service, or functions that arise from one\'s position (as in life or in a group) b (1) : assigned service or business (2) : active military service (3) : a period of being on duty
3 a : a moral or legal obligation b : the force of moral obligation

 

[green stuff]

Message original : airhead
I\'m talking in the terms of \"obligation\" not \"tax\".

Don\'t you mean \"task\"?