AR-15's brought to Obama townhall.

[Loner]

Back to the debate about carrying guns at the event. The White House is not against it.

Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality."

Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs's comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.

"What Gibbs said is wrong," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It's crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody."

The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans' event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.

Phoenix police made no arrests, saying Arizona law allows weapons to be carried in the open.

Last week, a man with a gun strapped to his leg held a sign outside an Obama town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., that read: "It's time to water the tree of liberty."

Before the same meeting, Richard Terry Young, a New Hampshire resident, was arrested by the Secret Service for allegedly having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car. Young was stopped inside the school where Obama held the forum, having reportedly sneaked past a security perimeter.

Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a "relatively new phenomenon." But he said the president's safety is not being jeopardized.

"We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms," he said. "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered. These people weren't ticketed for events and wouldn't have been allowed inside and weren't in a position outside to offer a threat." The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said.

Lawmakers holding tense town hall debates about health-care reform also have seen armed constituents. The staff of some, including Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.), have taken precautions to guard against guns being brought into gatherings.

"We asked everyone with firearms to check them with the sheriff before we began the meeting," said Marilyn Dillihay, Cohen's chief of staff, describing an Aug. 8 town hall debate in Memphis. "We've never done that before." The decision was made because the number of people at the event and the subject of the debate created a "potentially a volatile situation," she said.

"Obviously there's a lot of emotion with health care," Dillihay said. "Feelings are very tense, and we were just trying to make sure that things were safe."

One man at the meeting disclosed that he had a firearm and complied with a request to put it in his vehicle, she said.

Other lawmakers said they intended to take no precautions in future town hall meetings or to ask the advice of local law enforcement. C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), said the congresswoman will "balance rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment and providing her constituents with a safe forum to share their views."

Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University at San Bernardino, said concern about whether Obama will enact new gun restrictions may also be contributing to the tense political climate.

"There's a lot of anger out there," Levin said.

"A key thing that's been bubbling under the surface is what's going on with President Obama and guns," he said. "There is a real question mark not only for extremists but for gun rights advocates in the mainstream."

Staff writer Carrie Johnson contributed to this report.

Fascinating.

[ray245]

I never said I was ok with the Bank Bailouts either. They should have been allowed to fail, along with GM and Chrysler, I bet if the Government hadn't of intervened, they would have figured things out on their own.

Goddamn it, you have no fucking idea how the economy works do you?

[Karmic Knight]

I never said I was ok with the Bank Bailouts either. They should have been allowed to fail, along with GM and Chrysler, I bet if the Government hadn't of intervened, they would have figured things out on their own.

What you described is essentially Herbert Hoover's tackling of the great depression, it didn't fucking work.

[Darth Raptor]

Kind of like how banks figured out that lending to anyone and everyone was a bad idea?

[Questor]

Ok so Area 51 was a bad example. How about Politicians who make promises they don't deliver on? "Read My Lips" and "No families making less then $250,000 will see new taxes!" I think from now on I'll just vote for the party with the most positions opposite of my own, since they either A: Never get them accomplished, or B: take steps backwards.

So you feel lied to by the government, that's nice.

I never said I was ok with the Bank Bailouts either. They should have been allowed to fail, along with GM and Chrysler, I bet if the Government hadn't of intervened, they would have figured things out on their own.

You cited this as evidence of a massive shift in policy to the left. Please explain how it is a shift. Remember, by saying it is a shift, you need to show that the previous administration was not doing such things.

The Big Brother reference was to the Iraq war starting just a few months after 9-11. Unless I was yet again the only person who thought "wait, why are we attacking a country totally unrelated to the country that supposedly attacked us on 9-11?" I remember being in a bar with some friends hearing about it, and didn't want to say anything around a bunch of drunken fair-weather Patriots, for fear of getting stabbed with a broken beer bottle.

How is that relevant to the points being made? Also, while I think a lot of it was fabricated, Bush did present a casus belli for going into Iraq. You're still dodging most of the questions that have been put to you, though.

Edit: Clarification

[Paradox]

Kind of like how banks figured out that lending to anyone and everyone was a bad idea?

If I remember right, they were "forced" to lend to people who possibly couldn't pay back the loans, in order to fill some government quotas on fairness. Hello Subprime mortgage disaster!

[Questor]

Kind of like how banks figured out that lending to anyone and everyone was a bad idea?

If I remember right, they were "forced" to lend to people who possibly couldn't pay back the loans, in order to fill some government quotas on fairness. Hello Subprime mortgage disaster!

How were they forced? Evidence please?

[Paradox]

Kind of like how banks figured out that lending to anyone and everyone was a bad idea?

If I remember right, they were "forced" to lend to people who possibly couldn't pay back the loans, in order to fill some government quotas on fairness. Hello Subprime mortgage disaster!

How were they forced? Evidence please?

Not sure what year it was, but Clinton made a big deal about "Everyone should be able to afford the American Dream.", I'm still looking for the exact legislation.

How is that relevant to the points being made? Also, while I think a lot of it was fabricated, Bush did present a casus belli for going into Iraq. You're still dodging most of the questions that have been put to you, though.

Not sure which one I've dodged, I thought I answered them all.

[Aratech]

Anyone for starting a betting pool on how long before Paradox acusses us of being commie, Stalin worshiping bastards?

That said, to Mr. Paradox: Child, if you expect the grownups to treat you with respect on this board, you must first earn it. This must be done by demonstrating logic, common sense, the ability to back up ones assertions, and in this instance, a grasp of economics greater than that of a third grader.

[Paradox]

Anyone for starting a betting pool on how long before Paradox acusses us of being commie, Stalin worshiping bastards?

That said, to Mr. Paradox: Child, if you expect the grownups to treat you with respect on this board, you must first earn it. This must be done by demonstrating logic, common sense, the ability to back up ones assertions, and in this instance, a grasp of economics greater than that of a third grader.

Brilliant ad hom! Now where's that thumbs up smiley?

[Aratech]

Anyone for starting a betting pool on how long before Paradox acusses us of being commie, Stalin worshiping bastards?

That said, to Mr. Paradox: Child, if you expect the grownups to treat you with respect on this board, you must first earn it. This must be done by demonstrating logic, common sense, the ability to back up ones assertions, and in this instance, a grasp of economics greater than that of a third grader.

Brilliant ad hom! Now where's that thumbs up smiley?

To quote a certain Spaniard: You keep using that word, but I don't think you know what it means.

For my statement to be an Ad Hom, I'd have had to insulted you and left it at that. Instead, I insulted you and simultaneously pointed out the flaws in your arguments. You've shown nothing to support your claims of the man being a plant, and your unwavering devotion to laissez-faire capitalism in a time of major economic crisis has been done before. History books know it as the Great Depression. Kind of ironic for someone who is bringing up the old 'those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it' argument.

[Questor]

Not sure what year it was, but Clinton made a big deal about "Everyone should be able to afford the American Dream.", I'm still looking for the exact legislation.

I look forward to reading it

Not sure which one I've dodged, I thought I answered them all.

Yes, but at the same time, you can't have it both ways. What was your reaction to Colin Powell at the UN? Did you assume that Bush was fabricating the evidence there? Are you a truther? These are both similar things that you are proposing, albeit on a slightly different scale.

I never said I was ok with the Bank Bailouts either. They should have been allowed to fail, along with GM and Chrysler, I bet if the Government hadn't of intervened, they would have figured things out on their own.

You cited this as evidence of a massive shift in policy to the left. Please explain how it is a shift. Remember, by saying it is a shift, you need to show that the previous administration was not doing such things.

[Simon_Jester]

It's as if they have shut off all critical-thinking abilities.

I suspect that what we're seeing here is critical thinking misapplied. Critical thinking aimed only in one direction, at always finding flaws in one side's arguments, is often worse than no critical thinking at all.

Someone with absolutely zero critical thinking skills would probably never consider the possibility that Town Hall Rifleman was an agent provocateur. They would tend to take events at face value, since the story seems quite plausible. There are people who believe that they have the right to bear arms, who care intensely about that, and who also care intensely about opposing Obama's health care plan. Not hard to see how that can add up to guys carrying guns outside Obama's town hall meeting.

But what happens when we have someone who is grimly determined to "find the flaw" in the "herd's" idea of what's going on? Someone with strong preconceptions about which side is in the right (and, more importantly, righteous)?

Such a person will dismiss at once the notion that it was Side A which committed a wrong by carrying a powerful rifle to a political meeting. That smacks of intimidation tactics and of taking a political doctrine to the point of lunacy. Surely, they think, the Side of the Angels would do no such thing!

So, using a basic critical thinking technique, they start to try to imagine alternative explanations that fit the same superficial evidence. One of the most likely, predictable explanations* is that the rifleman is a plant, placed to discredit the Side of the Angels by their enemies, the Side of the Devils.

*As in "likely and predictable if you dismiss the idea that things are exactly what they seem"
__________

This is one of the most dangerous combinations in politics: a moderate amount of general intelligence combined with strong biases that selectively blinker a person against inconvenient evidence or interpretations of that evidence. Biased intelligence is far more likely to produce ridiculous conspiracy theories (and lunatic plans such as bringing guns to a town hall meeting) than simple stupidity.

The problem is not that they don't think, it's that they don't think about the right things. They'd probably know more about the world if they thought less.

[Jeremy]

I'm (paleo)conservative, I'm a Jingo, I'm right wing, I'm libertarian, I'm a RKBA person, and I'm an extremist about a lot of topics. When I vote, economics and liberty are just as important as folk, family, and faith. I was a kid when I started voicing political concerns and should have kept shut up--I still should.

I voted against John Kerry and think the world is a better place because of Kerry not being President. I think George Bush gave adequate reason for insurrection by the national debt he accrued and honestly think Tea Parties would have started under McCain (just a little later). I did not see where anyone (and barely Paul) in the Republican primary stood up for my conservative values and solemnly believe most conservatives feel the same alienation from the Republican Party Elite/Establishment.

I voted for Ron Paul in the primrary and voted against Barrack Obama in the presidentials. I like Barrack Obama as much as I like being "affectionatly" called "college boy". Barrack Obama, however, is the President of my country--that deserves some respect, that deserves a lot of respect. My President does not deserve the vitriol that President Bush recieved and certainly doesn't deserve half the idiocy that he is currently recieving. There is enough of his own words to condemn Barrack Obama without petulent antics.

If my conservative position wants to "take back" (if it ever had) America, it will only be done by personal choice and acceptance of the populace, not by shouting incoherent facts and wild extrapolations at others. I can not see why anyone would stay at these town hall meetings, especially a conservative trying to have his position taken into serious, deliberative consideration.

This is America I am in, we are supposed to be mature and level in our discourse. We keep reverting to childishness for media attention or to silence through intimidation.

If there are Union Thugs beating the opposition, cameras would be much more effective than guns.

If we don't stop childish recourse in politics we are doomed to experience all that this country was founded to avoid--like the Civil War.

I keep expecting that there will be a revolution of the adults, but when we are faced with mindless slogans like "Hope we can believe in", "blue dog democrats", or "NAZI death panels"--how can there be any change?

[Samuel]

I'm a Jingo

Would you like for me to explain why extreme nationalism is a bad thing and how it can backfire horribly?

solemnly believe most conservatives feel the same alienation from the Republican Party Elite/Establishment.

Of course. I can't believe anyone is still dumb enough to believe they will deliever on their social related promises.

the President of my country--that deserves some respect, that deserves a lot of respect.

No, it doesn't. Office does should not come with respect- the executive is a servant of the people and with all that entails. It doesn't mean he has to listen to us, but it does mean that the position exists for the benefit of the country and not its office holder.

If we don't stop childish recourse in politics we are doomed to experience all that this country was founded to avoid--like the Civil War.

Actually politics have always been shit in this country (and others). Did you know that Thomas Jefferson wanted to ban the bible? Or that Jackson was a polygamist? The problem is not childish recourse because that is essentially going to be with us as long as people enjoying making fun of others they think are idiots. The problem is when the two sides get to a point where compomise is impossible- in the case of the civil war the South refused to give up power and when a threat to that came, they broke away.

Also, the US wasn't founded to avoid the civil war. Its structure actually encourages civil war which is why the radical republicans overhalled the constitution. With state armies, lame duck terms, delegated powers and a weak central government, it was a bad combo waiting to break down and be reformed.

but when we are faced with mindless slogans like "Hope we can believe in", "blue dog democrats", or "NAZI death panels"--how can there be any change?

Blue Dog Democrats is a description of Democrats who are the conservative wing of the party, Nazi death panels isn't really a slogan- it is a description that, while wrong, means what it says it means.

Hope we can believe in IS a catchphrase. So is I like Ike, 54-40 or fight...
http://www.presidentsusa.net/campaignslogans.html

I'd psychoanalyze this and point out you are going through an idealist phase where you don't realize that this shit is perfectly normal for politics, but I'm busy watching the dubbed episodes of sailor moon so I wouldn't be able to end it without saying it.

[Glocksman]

Back to the debate about carrying guns at the event. The White House is not against it.

Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held by President Obama acted within the law, the White House said Tuesday, attempting to allay fears of a security threat.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality."

Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs's comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.

"What Gibbs said is wrong," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It's crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody."

The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans' event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.

Phoenix police made no arrests, saying Arizona law allows weapons to be carried in the open.

Last week, a man with a gun strapped to his leg held a sign outside an Obama town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., that read: "It's time to water the tree of liberty."

Before the same meeting, Richard Terry Young, a New Hampshire resident, was arrested by the Secret Service for allegedly having a loaded, unlicensed gun in his car. Young was stopped inside the school where Obama held the forum, having reportedly sneaked past a security perimeter.

Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a "relatively new phenomenon." But he said the president's safety is not being jeopardized.

"We're well aware of the subjects that are showing up at these events with firearms," he said. "We work closely with local law enforcement to make sure that their very strict laws on gun permits are administered. These people weren't ticketed for events and wouldn't have been allowed inside and weren't in a position outside to offer a threat." The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said.

Lawmakers holding tense town hall debates about health-care reform also have seen armed constituents. The staff of some, including Rep. Stephen I. Cohen (D-Tenn.), have taken precautions to guard against guns being brought into gatherings.

"We asked everyone with firearms to check them with the sheriff before we began the meeting," said Marilyn Dillihay, Cohen's chief of staff, describing an Aug. 8 town hall debate in Memphis. "We've never done that before." The decision was made because the number of people at the event and the subject of the debate created a "potentially a volatile situation," she said.

"Obviously there's a lot of emotion with health care," Dillihay said. "Feelings are very tense, and we were just trying to make sure that things were safe."

One man at the meeting disclosed that he had a firearm and complied with a request to put it in his vehicle, she said.

Other lawmakers said they intended to take no precautions in future town hall meetings or to ask the advice of local law enforcement. C.J. Karamargin, a spokesman for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), said the congresswoman will "balance rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment and providing her constituents with a safe forum to share their views."

Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University at San Bernardino, said concern about whether Obama will enact new gun restrictions may also be contributing to the tense political climate.

"There's a lot of anger out there," Levin said.

"A key thing that's been bubbling under the surface is what's going on with President Obama and guns," he said. "There is a real question mark not only for extremists but for gun rights advocates in the mainstream."

Staff writer Carrie Johnson contributed to this report.

Fascinating.

Remarks like this will help ease the worries of the more sane gun people.
The nutjobs will see it as evidence of duplicity.

It wouldn't matter to the conspiracy whackos if Obama suddenly pushed for repeals of the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA because they'd see it as proof that liberals have a newly developed personal forcefield that protects them from automatic weapons fire.

That said, a part of me says 'fuck you, asshole' to Paul Helmke and the rest of the twats at the Brady Campaign.

[loomer]

Get the fuck out, Paradox, it's my job to satirize and interpret the right wing lunatic conspiracy nuts...

Oh, wait, you're serious. What the fuck is wrong with you? Did a socialist rape you when you were a kid or something?

"Socialism one swallow at a time..." Jesus christ, what the fuck is wrong with cash for clunkers? It's forty fucking dollars, which you will save on medical bills down the line from not having to suck up the smog from other cars, you short sighted goddamn jackass.

Go home, go get more than a grade school diploma, put down your bible and your fucking budweiser, and learn to be a goddamn man instead of a squeaky voiced little 'but its MY money' asshole.

Seriously, that's half of what's wrong with your views. It's all about YOU. Fuck YOU. YOU are nothing next to the greater whole, so cough up the 40$ of your 'precious' cash without making a big deal of it. Do you also oppose UHC?

[PeZook]

Of course, this matches Pollux's little conspiracy theory perfectly, doesn't it?

It was all a provocation! Done so that we could ban guns/discredit the opposition/suck up to conservatives by praising them!

[Thanas]

Ok so Area 51 was a bad example. How about Politicians who make promises they don't deliver on? "Read My Lips" and "No families making less then $250,000 will see new taxes!" I think from now on I'll just vote for the party with the most positions opposite of my own, since they either A: Never get them accomplished, or B: take steps backwards.

Paradox - you went from "Black Panthers intimidated voters" to "they covered it up" to "my evidence is my gut" (because you just know Obama being elected must have beeen accomplished by Shady means, right?) to "Area 51, ergo the Black Panter story true as well" to "Well, Politicians lie all the time, so the Black Panther story is true".

This is not a convincing argument, to put it mildly. It is the sort of argument you would expect from the league of lady conspiratists. You might be convinced that this is an ad hominem, it is not. Your argument is devoid of any reasoning.

So please, either prevent evidence of Voter manipulation or shut up.

[PeZook]

Of course, this matches Pollux's little conspiracy theory perfectly, doesn't it?

It was all a provocation! Done so that we could ban guns/discredit the opposition/suck up to conservatives by praising them!

Ghetto edit: I meant to make fun of Paradox in this post. Sorry, Pollux

[Broomstick]

Wow, 2nd time: It was a gut instinct. I don't expect any administration, Bush, Obama, whoever, to be above board in their dealings.

I don't expect politicians to have clean hands, either, and Obama comes out of Chicago, which is notorious for corruption in government, but the level of conspiracy you're advocating is highly unlikely.

You think it's crazy that someone in an open carry state would show up somewhere with a gun? Why?

Meanwhile I didn't even mention Obama not being a US citizen, yet I've been somehow put in that group?

You're the one who brought up the Birther Bullshit with this sentence, no one else did.

They say people who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, but whenever someone makes a comparison to the Nazi's, (unless its comparing them to a Republican) people seem to go unhinged.

We're not "unhinged", we just think you're talking out of your ass. Real Nazis were much more organized and efficient at getting things done, for one thing. For another, if you really understood your history you'd realize that American politicians are nowhere near that level of evil. Given that much of my family in the 1940's was systematically slaughtered by real Nazis, it pisses me off that people casually sling the term around as an insult.

[Broomstick]

1: Not personal experience, but how long did the Government lie about Area 51 really existing?

Where the... UFOs are being reverse-engineered, right?

There actually IS an Area 51. Like a lot of top secret facilities the government didn't so much deny its existence as refuse to acknowledge it (OK, there were denials, but as hundreds, if not thousands, of people have worked at Area 51 over the years its existence was never going to remain completely secret). With the advent of things like Google Earth they finally marked it on the map.

Personally, I think anything secret at Area 51 is long gone - I think it's now a decoy and the real Super Secret Stuff goes on elsewhere.

Were there ever really UFO's there? I have no idea. Personally I doubt we have ever been visited by extraterrestrials though if proof shows up I'd certainly be interested.

[Broomstick]

1: Not personal experience, but how long did the Government lie about Area 51 really existing?

Is this a joke? If not, please provide evidence that the government lied about Area 51 actually existing, because as I recall, it is a nickname for Range 4808 North, which I believe is on general aviation charts.

Yes, it is. In fact, it has been since it was first created. Nothing unusual about military airspace being on GA charts. After all, if such places weren't noted we wouldn't know to either ask permission before entering the airspace or stay the hell out of restricted/dangerous areas.

[Broomstick]

Ok so Area 51 was a bad example. How about Politicians who make promises they don't deliver on? "Read My Lips"

You do realize that the "read my lips" pledge was broken for the benefit of the country, don't you? Or do you think a pledge that has become harmful should be kept regardless of consequences?

and "No families making less then $250,000 will see new taxes!"

Funny how those who quote this always leave out the word "income" between "new" and "taxes".

I never said I was ok with the Bank Bailouts either. They should have been allowed to fail, along with GM and Chrysler, I bet if the Government hadn't of intervened, they would have figured things out on their own.

No, they would have gone down the shitter.

I remember being in a bar with some friends hearing about it, and didn't want to say anything around a bunch of drunken fair-weather Patriots, for fear of getting stabbed with a broken beer bottle.

If you're afraid your "friends" will attack you with improvised weapons for stating your mind you desperately need a better class of "friend".

[PeZook]

You know, allow me to point out one thing:

2: Cash for Clunkers, why am I paying $40 in taxes so someone can buy a new car? Socialism one tiny swallow at a time.

You know, Germany has introduced similar laws lately, and I'm glad. Why?

Because it means there's way less barely running imported cars being brought in from Germany.

The environment benefits somewhat (old cars pollute much more than new ones, and especially if they're abandoned on the side of the road), the drivers benefit (because less of them die or get maimed in accidents) and the economy does, too (because people buy new cars despite the crisis).

In essence, you're asking "Why should pay 40$ in taxes to help the environment, aid the auto industry, help reduce my nation's dependency on foreign oil and help people not get fucked up in accidents?"

But this doesn't sound as edgy, huh? Yeah, it's socialism: the thing which the US has too little of.