[PimpBrewski123]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Robair Robair:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

So sez you.

I attended a Bill Clinton presentation once and was armed to the teeth. Are you going to tell me that I was doing that as nothing less than a threat to the man?

A presentation, not a protest. If you were among a group of protestors and you had a rifle on your back, yes, I'm pretty sure that would be the intent.
Unless you were protesting firearm restrictions, then a rifle makes sense.

At the time I had my .45, a Remington 700, four fragmentation grenades, two knives, a wire garrote, and three loaded extra clips for the .45 and 100 rounds of ammo for the 700.

Sometimes it's easy for anyone to say any sort of thing on the internet.

[Scape]

martin14 martin14:

Scape Scape:

...the only possible reason for that public display of firepower is simple intimidation.

Not at all.

The gun lobby in the US is concerned about Obama
putting new restrictions on weapons.

1. Bringing a weapon to a protest will generate publicity
about this issue, and hopefully also undermine the
Health care bomb he will drop.

2. It is a legal activity.

That's not the context here. The fact that they can carry is not the issue at all. The fact that they are telling everyone to show up armed is and making public displays making sure everyone who is going knows there is going to be armed participants.

You can carry a gun but the only reason to broadcast that fact is to intimidate.

[ManifestDestiny]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The Klan didn't block the door or prevent them from voting, they just stood there on public property, which is their right, wearing their KKK bedsheets which is also their right and said "hello" to all the black people walking by.

"Hey boy, I've seen you around town before, haven't I? Your family lives over on maple street don't they boy? You work over at the mill don't you boy? Hey, its gonna be dark soon, hope you get home safe!"

Same thing for these teabaggers showing up armed to these rallys.

What the frig are you talking about! get out of the 60's in the 2000's it the black panthers who itimidate voters!

[BeaverFever]

so? my point still stands.

[ridenrain]

Who was intimidating who again?

[ManifestDestiny]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

so? my point still stands.

Get out of the 60's

[BartSimpson]

PimpBrewski123 PimpBrewski123:

Sometimes it's easy for anyone to say any sort of thing on the internet.

I figured sooner or later we'd get to this. Clinton visited Lejeune in December 1996 and came out unannounced to see a field exercise. There was a full battalion loaded for bear when he showed up and it must have given the Secret Service the vapors. I didn't hear too much of what he said but I still give him props for the visit.

[martin14]

Scape Scape:

martin14 martin14:

Scape Scape:

...the only possible reason for that public display of firepower is simple intimidation.

Not at all.

The gun lobby in the US is concerned about Obama
putting new restrictions on weapons.

1. Bringing a weapon to a protest will generate publicity
about this issue, and hopefully also undermine the
Health care bomb he will drop.

2. It is a legal activity.

That's not the context here. The fact that they can carry is not the issue at all. The fact that they are telling everyone to show up armed is and making public displays making sure everyone who is going knows there is going to be armed participants.

You can carry a gun but the only reason to broadcast that fact is to intimidate.

Sorry, Scape, wrong again.
If openly carrying a gun in AZ was intimidating, the governemnt
would change the laws.

They don't, therefore it isnt intimidating.

You are trying to apply a Canadian idea to an American activity.

[BartSimpson]

Scape Scape:

You can carry a gun but the only reason to broadcast that fact is to intimidate.

Isn't it possible that the purpose of carrying a rifle is to remind people that they have a right to carry a rifle?

Also, you are not too familiar with Arizona, are you? The sight of anyone anywhere in Arizona carrying a rifle is not going to intimidate the natives. It might bother you but it won't bother them.

[ASLplease]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Isn't it possible that the purpose of carrying a rifle is to remind people that they have a right to carry a rifle? .

I see your point.

But I also think this point will be lost on most of the anti-gun crowd

[Dayseed]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Isn't it possible that the purpose of carrying a rifle is to remind people that they have a right to carry a rifle?

But why would somebody need to remind people they have the right to carry a rifle AT a rally/presentation/ol' fashioned brouhaha that has nothing to do with guns, the 2nd amendment or encroachment of anyconstitutional rights?

Folks, I'm here at the health care town-hall meeting to remind you that as a citizen, you too can carry a rifle, as you can clearly see on my back, so that you may, as is your constitutional right which as before, I am reminding you, blast the fuck out of a tuna in a river from the safety of the shoreline.

Thank you. I now plan to attend my son's baseball game where I will drink heavily to remind people it is your constitutional right to get shitfaced on liquor. After that, I'm going to go throw-up on Al Franken, in a weird, shameful reminder that Senators are directly elected to the Senate, rather than appointed in court-minded recounts.

I'll leave it up to history to decide what kind of hero I am...

$1:

Also, you are not too familiar with Arizona, are you? The sight of anyone anywhere in Arizona carrying a rifle is not going to intimidate the natives. It might bother you but it won't bother them.

I watch Medium. No rifles.

[Donny_Brasco]

Wow, how many people think civil war if one gun accidently misfires.

We can only hope!

[BartSimpson]

Dayseed Dayseed:

I watch Medium. No rifles.

I watch "Flashpoint" and have learned that Canadians in the GTA are a bunch of violent, gun-toting sociopaths who require a paramilitary special forces team to keep them under control.

[sandorski]

The Second Amendment was not the biggest mistake in the US Constitution. That claim can only be made by Alcohol Prohibition. 2 other ideas would be worse as well, Flag Burning and Man/Woman Marriage.

That said, it was still a big mistake and has stunted the Mental growth of the Country.

[Pseudonym]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The Klan didn't block the door or prevent them from voting, they just stood there on public property, which is their right, wearing their KKK bedsheets which is also their right and said "hello" to all the black people walking by.

"Hey boy, I've seen you around town before, haven't I? Your family lives over on maple street don't they boy? You work over at the mill don't you boy? Hey, its gonna be dark soon, hope you get home safe!"

Same thing for these teabaggers showing up armed to these rallys.

Bull. Voter intimidation is a crime. Just because you don't understand why they consider the right to bear arms to be important doesn't make them criminals. All I see is a bunch of people trying to impune the motives of honest American citizens without any justification. Find one of them making a statement advocating a crime like those being described here, and I will join you in criticizing their motivation, but until then all this is slanderous garbage.