Why the guns?
August 17, 2009
The Associated Press reports that there were about 12 people with guns outside President Obama’s event today (Monday) in Phoenix, AZ.
CNN reports that two men bore assault rifles.
The incident marks the third in a week in which guns have been linked to an Obama event
Do others find this as seriously disturbing as I do?
I know that AZ law permits such behavior. That’s not the point. Why do these people feel the need to show up at a political event as public as a presidential visit and display their firearms? What are they trying to communicate? Why do they feel as though they must resort to such means to do so?
Explanations?
Advertisement
83 Comments
Comments are closed.
I’m so proud of the citizens of my fair state.
Simply put, they are afraid.
Mark, Consider me also disturbed.
Mickey, Care to explain the logic?
Ronald, I think you are probably correct. They are afraid and feel the need to bring their guns to assert their own “power” in the face of their fear.
Of course, as followers of Christ we recognize that He teaches us to respond to our “enemies” with love and to conquer with the omnipotent powerlessness of kenotic love.
I totally agree Joshua.
“He teaches us to respond to our “enemies” with love and to conquer with the omnipotent powerlessness of kenotic love.”
Yes. We need to trust more wholeheartedly in the latter as the nature of God’s omnipotence and bear witness, with our very lives, to the efficacy of such love.
“The incident marks the third in a week in which guns have been linked to an Obama event”
When Bush showed up to events in Arizoana and people had guns did anyone care? I think it is a different in poltical and social morays in particular states
Where there citizens with visible guns, including semi-automatic assault rifles, at Bush’s political, public appearances in AZ? I missed those stories.
jh – No one had guns at Bush events. Please. You couldn’t even wear certain t-shirts at Bush events!
Mark,
This behavior is extremely disturbing. Prudential steps need to be taken to put an end to it before some horrible act is committed.
I look at this guy with a AK47 strapped around his shoulder in a place where the President is to speak. Ironically, if some young kid were standing right next to him smoking marijuana, the kid would be whisked away in a second. What’s wrong with this nation? Have we lost our marbles altogether?
“He teaches us to respond to our “enemies” with love and to conquer with the omnipotent powerlessness of kenotic love.”
But he doesn’t advise anyone to act stupidly. Acting prudently is not inconsistent with Charity. Being is analogous, as are means and methods. Each level of reality must be treated accordingly.
Did anyone show up at Clinton events with guns in AZ? I am getting a feeling that racism whether conscious or unconscious is rearing its ugly head.
“I am getting a feeling that racism whether conscious or unconscious is rearing its ugly head.”
Racism is definitely in the mix. Particulary whenever the likes of Glenn Beck are declaring Obama’s “deepseated hatred of white culture” on national television.
Hell, I hate white culture.
With what such a thing historically has stood/stands for, I hate it too.
Ronald,
The default Republican strategy for four decades has been the Southern Strategy. In abstract terms, it is a strategy predicated on the manufacture of fear. But, more specifically, it is a strategy that is designed to capitalize on racism. It uses a “code language” to underscore certain values and principles. Such code language allows people to give expression to racism, except to do so covertly. The idea of State’s Rights has been used to that effect.
Tea Baggers, Birthers, angry white men, immigration, a black president are code terms employed to bring about the same effect. They all produce fear in the hearts and minds of a segment of the population. But underlying discussion of these specific issues is the presence of racism, pure and simple.
This stratagem goes back to the work of Harry Dent and Lee Atwater, and has been carried on by Karl Rove.
It’s racism and militia gun-nut mentality. Again, the idea that Bush event attendees had guns is laughable. My sister was refused entry into a Bush event because she would not tell Secret Service agents that she was going to vote for him. Maybe if she had a gun, they would have let her in?
Before we go on about the ‘inherent racism’ in the mix, you did look at the pictures and note that the man carrying the assault rifle appears to be African-American, right?
Personally while I think it’s pretty silly to carry a weapon to such an event, it’s probably a lot more an act of protest than an act of fear. It’s more like the NRA equivalent of burning a flag.
Not everyone who disagrees with this president is a fearful, ignorant, cowardly racist, you guys. Much as it seems you’d like to think so.
RM
Also note the man interviewed in the clip was ‘outside’ the event venue – he was not in it (I very much doubt the Secret Service would have let him anywhere remotely near). So comparisons with standards applied to people actually admitted to Bush events is irrelevent.
RM
“When Bush showed up to events in Arizoana and people had guns did anyone care? ”
Find me one incident where this happened. “The left does it too!” does not excuse everything.
“Did anyone show up at Clinton events with guns in AZ? I am getting a feeling that racism whether conscious or unconscious is rearing its ugly head.”
No doubt they did just likk they did at Bush events. I was pretty big into the planning of a Bush visit to my town twice. You would be amazed at all the eccentrics that showed up Yes people with guns. They were on the whole not dangerous but goofy. They were dealt with quietly. There were no headlines there were no OH NO THE COUNTRY IS IN TROUBLE
There is no racism and despite Gerald’s post no “Southern strategy”by Republicans of fear based on racism and other sins.
Not everyone who disagrees with this president is a fearful, ignorant, cowardly racist, you guys.
Well, you’re right. I happen to disagree with this president on a great number of issues.
But I think we indeed need to identify and call out those who disagree with the president because they are “fearful, ignorant, cowardly, and/or racist.”
So comparisons with standards applied to people actually admitted to Bush events is irrelevent.
As phosphorious said, name ONE event where someone “on the Left” hovered outside a Bush event with an AK47. Or someone on the Right for that matter. Name one.
jh – Can you offer any proof?
Gerald,
“He teaches us to respond to our “enemies” with love and to conquer with the omnipotent powerlessness of kenotic love.”
But he doesn’t advise anyone to act stupidly. Acting prudently is not inconsistent with Charity. Being is analogous, as are means and methods. Each level of reality must be treated accordingly.
I like to hear more of your thoughts on this. I understand what your are saying, but I am having trouble concretizing it in my mind. Perhaps it is the late hour. I do not, however, want to derail the convo. Email if you like.
“Find me one incident where this happened. “The left does it too!” does not excuse everything.”
It is not a question of legality. I think it is a issue of common sense. One thing I find amusing and a tad sad about the coverage of these town halls is a few crazies get the coverage. I have seen the same clip of that guy in Penn ranting and raving a thousand times. But the fact is this is not occuring nationwide. It can be the most boring political season and a Senator shows up and you have on the far right some goofy idiot that says Bush is for a Morth American Union or the left someone that swears Bush is was going to suspend Const Govt. All Presidents deal with this. In town halls 99 percent of the populance is sane. What is insane is people on each side of the poltical debate making a large amount of your countrymen portrayed as raving loons!! Real life does not work this way. We know this. On the lcoal level at football games, the Lions Club, at the town pool, we all interact with fols whose opinions differ from ours. Heck we let our kids even sleep over at their houses. But when things get heated each side assumes the worst about the other. Which is not only sad but not very good Govt.
“:jh – Can you offer any proof?”
Michael proof of what? That people showed up with guns at Bush events? Well I guess I can research it but I know at the event I did we had people with valid concealded carry show up. In fact in Louisiana if the gun is visible it is not concealed and thuis legal. It was taken care of.
“There is no racism and despite Gerald’s post no “Southern strategy”by Republicans of fear based on racism and other sins.”
This is nonsense. And you establish your credibility by saying you worked on a Bush event in your town? Yikes! Spend even an hour looking around and you’ll discover what has been going on for four decades. You’ve got a long ways to go, my friend.
Check this clip out. Here’s President Bush I and Lee Atwater soaking up on Willie Horton. George Bush II learned under the tutelage of Karl Rove who learned from Lee Atwater. Harry Dent and Lee Atwater created a cancer at the heart of American politics that has been totally destructive. Karl Rove brought it into the center of the White House.
There is no such thing as “white culture”–and particularly not in America, where there are so many sub-cultures and ethnicities.
This idiocy, which is being encouraged by the right-wing pundits who whip up hatred against the President, is going to lead to a tragic accident: one of these gun-toting idiots is going to be shot to death by the Secret Service, who, although probably panicking at this point–and absolutely determined to protect their President–have methods of surveillance of crowds that are far more technologically sophisticated than did the agents who guarded John Kennedy or Gerald Ford or Ronald Reagan. A Hinckley would never even get near a President nowadays. Why else do you suppose that Bush, who was hated everywhere on earth, managed to travel and survive his two terms?
I predict: one of these gun-toting idiots is going to die tragically very soon–but then, of course, all the right-wing Catholics, like Robert M above, will blame OBAMA for that, too.
[i]But I think we indeed need to identify and call out those who disagree with the president because they are “fearful, ignorant, cowardly, and/or racist.”[/i]
I agree. But simply showing up outside an event with a gun, where permitted and fully legal, is not evidence of any of those things.
I expect it’s probably far more common than you think, it’s just usually not ‘news’. It’s just dealt with (as jh indicated).
Are you at least willing to admit this case (at least the one interviewed) has NOT been perpetrated by an ‘angry white man’? And thus, that carrying a gun to a venue does not [i]de facto[/i] make one a fearful white racist, but could in fact make one a law-abiding black citizen who perhaps wants to make perfectly legal (yet ill-informed, I grant you)statement about his rights under current law?
RM
RM
“This is nonsense. And you establish your credibility by saying you worked on a Bush event in your town? Yikes! Spend even an hour looking around and you’ll discover what has been going on for four decades. You’ve got a long ways to go, my friend”
I fully know what is going on. Down here until fairly recently the parties ID was blurry. It still is to a certain degree. I have worked events for people of both parties and yes I have seen the loons. They are part of the poltical theatre. So I am not quite as cynical as some. Most people and most of our fellow mericans are good people on both sides of the aisle. It is only in these heated debates that some carelessy throw around the term NAZI or racist.
The Southern plot has always been overblown. The defections to the GOP in the SOuth started occuring way before Reagan. Actually during the Nixon administration which had a habit of implementing all these degegration decrees. That of course has been forgotten. This was pretty much water under the bridge when Carter came on the scene and he got a solid south. How that fits into the plot I don’t know.
I am not sure what Karl Rove did that was evil as to this supposed Southern Stragety. I seem to recall a huge amount of black outreach. It did not get a lot of results but it got it was enough. Of course this was the same Karl Rove that was trying to get immigration reform through. Not sure how he could be racist since he advocating a plan that would benefit a ton of hispanic illegals.
digby,
That was totally unwarranted. As distressingly usual for VN the overwhelming desire you jump to conclusions about political orientations, label and pigeonhole anyone who dissents, and then say something ignorant. I have not blamed Obama for anything in this conversation, so where does ‘blame him for that too’ come from?
I happen to agree with your characterization of showing up to such events openly armed as ‘idiocy’ that invites a SS response and dramatically increases the risk of accident.
I’m just disagreeing with the ‘default’ mode that insists it could only be a result of talk-radio incited white male anger blah blah blah.
You are so defensive and your hysteria (like that of many others in the blogosphere, media and elsewhere) is not helping the situation or the dialogue.
I think a lot of people should study the Bush White House more closely — many today use the ‘militia’ the same way Bush & Co used al Qaeda. I cannot believe people refuse to see that.
RM
Let us be as civil and charitable with our dialogical interlocutors as possible!
I went to prep school with Lee Atwater.
Some time after the 1988 election I met him in the Columbia, South Carolina airport. I was on my way to California for Christmas, and he was coming back to Aiken, South Carolina, to spend Christmas with his family.
He tried to schmooze me, in the manner that Southern politicians ALWAYS try to, even with people they know disagree with them heartily. He tried his “Hey, how ya’ do’in, Bob” routine on me, and I just said, “You should be ashamed of what you did in that election. You betrayed everything we were taught by_________and__________,” and he just responded, smirkingly, “Hey, ya’ do what ya’ gotta’ do.”
By the way a trip down memory lane. DO people recall the protests at the 2004 Republican convention. What about the 2008 convention that resulted in convictions for pipe bomb plots by the radical left.
Now are those indicative of “liberals”? Of course not. Are they indicative of some scary unhinged left? Of course not.
Politics is always very emotional and even I fall into selective syndrome if not careful.
I apologize, Robert M.; I put your name down too quickly, meaning to write “jh.”
However, regarding THAT interlocutor, let me make something crystal clear: as a sort of white Southerner who grew up in the era of the “Southern Strategy,” I KNOW that those who’d provide “cover” for it and insist that Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Bushes did NOT use tacit hatred and fear of blacks to win the votes of the “solid South” over and over again are liars and racists themselves. As a sort of “white Southerner” growing up there, I had countless opportunities to listen to those who listened to the coded rhetoric of these Republican politicians and who spoke, in the aftermath of their speeches, about how those gentlemen at least weren’t “nigger-lovers” and would do everything they could to keep their families “safe from the niggers.”
Amerian journalism agrees to help to disguise this reality. As recently as Tiger Woods’s victory in the Masters Golf Tournament at the Augusta National, Newsweek and Time, which I was reading in Sri Lanka, as a Peace Corps Volunteer, were reporting about how Tiger was “accepted” by the club members and staff of this formerly segregated and very posh country club. My father, who is a member, told me by mail not to believe a word of it–that the membership were, instead, bewailing the fact that “that boy” wasn’t caddying instead of triumphing over white golfers, which was not “his proper station in life.”
Let’s face it, they’re carrying to be noticed. They accomplished their purpose. They were noticed. They didn’t break any laws, they were peaceful, and they didn’t threaten anyone. These guys do this to draw attention to gun rights, trying to put a face to the gun rights issue.
Personally, I think it’s kind of goofy to go around with a rifle on your shoulder in public, just like it would be to carry your chainsaw to a city council meeting or drag along a drill press to the doctor’s office. I own an AK, but the only time I’m going to carry the darn thing is when I intend to shoot it. Quite frankly, I’m kicking myself for not selling it when prices skyrocketed after the election. They’ve come back down since then.
I think this is probably the first time I’ve ever really agreed with Digby. Carrying one in the wrong social context can lead to an unintended lethal force situation.
JH,
I’m not trying to doubt or diminish your experience in Louisiana. What you do down there is commendable, I’m certain. I’ve directed Republican congressional campaigns in Florida and, like you, have found that local people are wonderful. It’s always a treat to interact with them because for the most part they want to do good by this country. Of that, I have no doubt.
But you would find it sobering to study Republican Party politics at the strategic and tactical level. You can’t get an accurate perception of what is going on with the politics of the Party or a national campaign by reflecting on your participation in a local event. I can assure you it is much different than what I hear you saying.
The same, of course, would apply to the politics of the Democratic Party.
I agree. But simply showing up outside an event with a gun, where permitted and fully legal, is not evidence of any of those things.
I expect it’s probably far more common than you think, it’s just usually not ‘news’. It’s just dealt with (as jh indicated).
I see no evidence whatsoever that “it’s probably far more common than [we] think.” Zero.
I think a lot of people should study the Bush White House more closely — many today use the ‘militia’ the same way Bush & Co used al Qaeda. I cannot believe people refuse to see that.
On the contrary, the connection between al-Qaeda and militia activity in the u.s. is obvious.
Now are those indicative of “liberals”? Of course not. Are they indicative of some scary unhinged left? Of course not.
Not anymore they’re not. Not when your current argument(s) would be undercut by saying so.
Michael, jh has already given you a personal example of it happening before. Since you clearly indicated you think it didn’t happen, that one example itself is already ‘more common than [you] think’.
Regarding al Qaeda and the militia, I am not talking about the connection between them. I’m talking about the similarities in how both are used by political interests in this country for domestic political ends, and the refusal of many to recognize that.
It is obvious you (and several others) will continue to ignore the valid objections I’ve raised to your original wild accusations and just snip off bits of arguments or sidetracks you can continue with, ignoring the inconvenient facts. If just once on this thread one of you would have the intellectual honesty to say ‘good point, I may have been premature in my assumptions’ or even ‘ok perhaps this incident doesn’t exactly portray what I first thought it did’ before going on to polish your pet rocks, I’d respect you more.
As it is it looks more like your interested in conducting your own rant rather than really looking at what might be the case here.
I’m not invalidating your argument overall — I’m just saying this probably isn’t what you’d like to think it is, and virtually NO evidence that I have seen, let alone that you have produced, demonstrates anything like what you’re maintaining.
Instead of demanding jh provide you with evidence that his story is true, why don’t you produce evidence that your ‘story’ about this event is ‘true’?
RM
This is why I just spent 2 months photographing in WesternEurope. The hysterical quality that so permeates American life is largely absent there (granted, they got their own problems). While I was standing in the spot where Clovis was crowned king of the Franks (Reims Cathedral), I figured that they’ve just seen it all before. I have a .45 but uh I wouldn’t bring it to a rally…
There is an ugly, huge, mob out there. Fox News and Co. are fanning the flames. Glenn Freakin’ Beck ? Americans have been indoctrinated with this socialism=communism BS forever, with the thanks of a happy corporate nation. Guaranteed vacation ? Yes but in the GULAG! Lol. Healthcare tied to the person, not a job ? 1 step short of child sacrifice. So, the pitchforks are being handed out. Ever heard of the “birthers” ? There is no doubt in my mind that the Obama hatred is far, far stronger because of his partly African roots. I couldn’t stand the Messianism of the Obama campaign, but the other side really features a lynch mob by now. The GOP fights the battles of the 19th century on ‘cultural’ issues, to rile up the idiots who in turn support the plundering of, well, everything. Huns tip their hats to the Bush administration.
The con job is perfect – the ‘little guy’ supports the ‘big guy’ in his efforts to stick it to same ‘little guy’. We’re not socialists, after all.
The General Hospital in Vienna is a fantastic, city-owned, hospital. In the US, public stuff is for the poor (if it exists at all). Public is bad, low quality, viewed as for losers, etc. It’s a decision to have decent institutions and facilities.
But, all that is futile in a country where Mormons will stand on highway overpasses protesting gay marriage (with millions from KofC), evolution is a topic and Sarah Palin is the great white hope. Even in California it gets pretty reactionary once you stray from the coast. Of course the Prius-cum-Obama-sticker people aren’t exactly bringing change to the world. Unless they’ve recently started sharing revenue for school districts.
Inequality is a fact of human history, but the USA has made it an art form. It’s even got the people who get screwed protesting to please keep getting screwed. The perfect scam. And that’s just the economy. The military has its own perfect scam, where crippled soldiers want to go right back and more must die so the others haven’t died in vain.
For one emblematic quote from an outraged Republican: “Keep your government hands off my Medicare”
I don’t know about you, but there’s this now-cured notion in me that doesn’t quite want to believe that a government could be “that bad.” I believe that works in favor of murder&mayhem everywhere.
Not everyone who disagrees with this president is a fearful, ignorant, cowardly racist, you guys.
I know that. I would like to dialogue with the responsible element of conservativism (and even collaborate with them on a number of issues I share their views on). Unfortunately they take little effective action to separate themselves from these racists or do much to offer an effective alternative voice to them.
Another example of men who do not have the intelligence or maturity to express their opinions except with threats. Anybody with even a tiny bit of
sense knows that this Health Care bill offers Government insurance as an OPTION. OPTION MEANS CHOICE. Most of the people who are asking questions appear to have not read the Bill….their questions reflect that. The bottom line is that they do not have the intelligence to realize that nothing President Obama has done in the past six months has put us in the messes we are in now. The bailouts started under Bush, some ordered under Bush are just now being implemented. Obama has started some projects that will be carried out but they will take some time, certainly more than six months. We are feeling the effects of the past six years, not the past six months. My Mom always said that there is nothing more dangerous than an ignorant person with power. The same thing could apply to an ignorant man with a gun.
The fools showing up at these town halls were playing the media. They watched the endless loops of tea partiers yelling and shaking their fists on cable 24/7, and wanted in on the action so they kicked it up a notch. The main “statement” was **WE DON’T KNOW NUTHIN BOUT HEALTH CARE, WE JUST WANNA GET ON TEEVEE** They will be forgotten by next week when the entrepreneurs selling handcrafted nooses take their turn parading in front of the cameras. There’s no law against it, is there?
I’m as big a fan of the Second Amendment as anyone, but anyone who carries a gun into proximity of the President should expect to be cut in half by bullets. That’s not a political or a religious issue.
MacTexas:
I don’t think you understand the objections of those who say that ObamaCare eliminates choice.
They know perfectly well that it’s being offered as an option. They are, however, either being cynical or realistic about how markets operate once government gets involved.
That is, they are arguing that once there is a taxpayer subsidized player in a market, no other players can really compete. Other players cannot have a bad year, make a few bad financial decisions, and stay in business; a government sponsored entity can and inevitably will. (If it starts to go south, Congress will debate about whether to rescue it or let it die, and the answer will always be to rescue it. If *Amtrak* is still being bailed out after all these years, you can bet a *Health Care* program will!)
The result then, is that the existence of the government-subsidized option will cause the other options to evaporate. They will either move to other markets where the government option does not directly compete, or they will find a way to become subsidized themselves (either by the government, or by other large organizations; e.g. Catholic Hospitals may be able to lean on donations from the faithful). Many of the smaller providers will either go out of business or be bought up to form larger providers.
This is why the introduction of the government option reduces choice. It’s not because there won’t be one additional choice five minutes after enactment; it’s because there’ll be a hundred fewer choices five years after enactment.
Excelsior,
Under the President’s plan, subsidies go to qualified persons using a private plan as well as a public option. These companies have not had a bad year in quite some time and it has been next to unheard of for one of them going out of business. The most causal review of their history show that there is not an iota of evidence to support the theory that a hundred of them would be gone in five years.
The right wing keeps holding out two mutually exclusive propositions — 1. that health care under the public plan would be terrible and undesirable. 2. that almost everyone would chose the public option if offered.
Robert M. – http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/18/headlines#6
I will wait for reports of similar incidents at Bush events.
Excelsior,
Where lies the primary responsibility of “for-profit” health insurance companies?
1) Does it lie with their fiduciary responsibility to shareholders who have invested in their company for the purpose of maximizing profits? Or,
2) Does it lie with their customers who seek services to main health?
These purposes are contradictory. How are they to be reconciled?
Now ask yourself:
Who is served by the refusal to insure those with pre-existing conditions?
Who is served when Medicare becomes the primary insurer for those over age sixty-five?
In both cases, it is the profits of the private insurance companies that are served. Without Medicare, most elderly would not have health insurance in the United States. Companies would not be able to maximize their profits and insure the elderly at the same time.
What is the logic for maintaining the private health insurance system? It seems that the greatest concern in this debate has been to protect the profits of the health insurance companies? Why should this even be a concern when private insurance companies are hard pressed to provide added value to the American health care system?
Michael,
jh has given you one (unless you’re saying he’s lying). There is also of course the fact that “not reported” does not, of course, equal “never happened”. You can say you can’t find evidence that such things were ever ‘reported’ at Bush events, but not that they never happened. Which also may be highly suggestive, to the more thoughtful.
When you’re ready to actually address the points I’ve made or the questions I’ve asked you, let me know. If your more comfortable in your private echo chamber, persisting in ignoring contrary evidence or potential alternative (and much more rational) explanations for this event, carry on.
RM
At least according to the local ABC station, the person carrying the rifle appears to be a black man. See the slideshow here:
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Man-protests-President-Obamas-Phoenix-speech-with/q4OeoN6qZU-efcy1Zoq7xQ.cspx
No doubt there are some right wing racist militants who would like to make their point in a violent way, just as during the Bush administration there certainly were radicals from the Middle East who were willing to resort to violence. Nevertheless it is interesting the way both the Obama and Bush organizations (and their acolytes) have made use of Americans’ fear of a diffuse, vague threat for political purposes. Exploitation of popular anxiety is usually an act of desperation, a sure sign that you are losing the argument.
“At least according to the local ABC station, the person carrying the rifle appears to be a black man.”
That doesn’t make any difference whatsoever to whether racism is at work among the Tea Baggers, the Birthers, the Town Hall disrupters, or those carrying guns.
I am pleased I am starting to hear for the first time, responsible conservatives rejecting the extremism of the teabaggers, gun toters, Birthers, Town Hallers and others. I would encourage you to keep on that path.
Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal Constitution captures one element prominently involved: intimidation, along with its pyschological and intellectual underpinnings.
“It is attempted intimidation..It is an acknowledgment that, lacking the intellectual firepower and ammunition to carry the day, the person in question is prepared to try to settle the issue using the kind of firepower and ammunition that any idiot can purchase at a local gunshop.”
“It also reflects a growing mindset among some that the government just isn’t listening and thus must be made to listen, one way or the other. There’s a fundamental childishness to that attitude, a notion that equates listening to agreement. The person in question is not prepared to accept the idea that having listened to him, a majority of his fellow Americans might decide that he is wrong. So he reserves the right to try to impose his view at the point of a gun.”
Mark – I believe that the sense of powerless described in that article is exactly what is underlying some of the gun-toting at Obama events.
There was a racist sign on the gate of the tract of BLM land by brother and I and a friend went hunting on this last Fall – actually, I think I’ll do a separate post on my experience there.
Magdalena,
“Nevertheless it is interesting the way both the Obama and Bush organizations (and their acolytes) have made use of Americans’ fear of a diffuse, vague threat for political purposes. Exploitation of popular anxiety is usually an act of desperation, a sure sign that you are losing the argument.”
You think that OBAMA is whipping up popular anxiety at these town hall meetings?
Armed Amercicans are being told that Obama, who isn’t really an American, is trampling on the Constitution. . . and it’s LIBERALS who are whipping up fear?
Are conservatives EVER wrong?
<Are conservatives EVER wrong?
On just a few ocassions.
Opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, Medicare/Medicaid, Disability Insurance, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation, the Marshall Plan, the School Lunch Program, the Rural Electrification Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act, Child Labor laws, the Wagner Act, the Norris-LaGuardia Act, the Peace Corps, the War Powers Act, Women’s Suffrage, DC Home Rule Act, Abolition of the Poll Tax, Executive Order 9981 for the desegregration of the Armed Services, Pell Grants…
Robert M – And I will wait for you and/or jh to offer a real report of this kind of occurrence at a Bush event. As of now I have seen nothing.
phosphorius
Yes, conservatives are wrong quite frequently (see most of the years 2001-2009). That doesn’t change the fact that in response to the current public relations fiasco, one favorite strategy has been to paint opponents as crazy, dangerous, “un-American” people (this is also how the Bush White House would have liked us to see the anti-war movement). Of course this strategy has backfired big time on President Obama, as the polls show that the more people see video from the Town Hall meetings the more they identify with the protestors. The public appears to be more afraid of the health care plan than their neighbors whom they see at Town Halls.
Using race is also a favorite strategy – anyone who opposes the health plan must have racism boiling just below the surface… the Republican party is a party of extremist racists etc. etc. And so the fact that one of the “crazy gun-toting dangerous racists” is a BLACK MAN is quite relevant. Nothing demonstrates more clearly that President Obama’s election was not quite the race relations watershed we all hoped for than the fact that his supporters feel free to use race as a wedge this way.
Again I have no doubt that there is some crazy “White Rights” person somewhere who would love to do some damage, which is why I am glad we have the Secret Service, who have done such a wonderful job for Obama and those who came before. Incidentally President Bush is not hated everywhere (typical Western provincialism). He is absolutely loved in parts of Africa, for instance.
Thank you Magdalena. The last election was the first time where I felt, thanks to the rhetoric of the far left, personally threatened by those who disagree with me politically. I would have otherwise been relatively indifferent to an Obama presidency had not the far left engaged in extreme rhetoric against people like me.
I fit the profile recently put forward by DHS for a potential domestic terrorist. I read the document on their website, no media spin involved. I am a gun owner and proponent of Second Amendment rights. I have been to rallies in front of abortion clinics. I am former military. I am religiously oriented. I have eight children. I am conservative. I will not say that homosexuality is good. I simply cannot say that a homosexual marriage is a marriage, because that would be a lie offensive to God. And for that I have been targeted by the left.
The current administration has not disavowed the unconstitutional legislation and rules of the previous administration, I suspect because they wish to reserve the right to use them. Unless you are a foreign Muslim.
I wish no harm on anyone and don’t believe in violence. But my ideas have essentially been labeled a threat. Will I lose my employment because everyone knows I have eight kids and so I must be a conservative? Will the police look at me because I’ve prayed in front of an abortion clinic? It has already happened to a friend of mine in my town.
I don’t need to look at the radical right. They are a bunch of loonies. But the radical left is in power, and they have stated time and time again that they want people like me to shut up, that we are a threat, and that we must somehow be “terrorists”. So that they can appropriate the actions of DHS against those who differ from them politically and religiously? I hope not, but from their rhetoric hope is all I have.
In my town the left wing media has already dragged large families through the mud, has already proclaimed us some sort of threat to the environment, and has attempted to marginalize, limit our ability to homeschool our kids, and otherwise end our way of life.
I have not called anyone names over this. I have only been marginally active in the political sphere, having submitted testimony to our legislature over a bill to force Catholic Hospitals to prescribe the Morning After Pill and met with my representative about this, one time only. Quite frankly I’m afraid to do more because of the threat posed by the left to me and my family.
Is this the way it is supposed to be? Some geek carries a gun, doesn’t break any laws, doesn’t threaten anyone, and you all are up in arms. I homeschool my kids and pray in front of an abortion clinic and I’m a potential terrorist.
Tell me, who really is doing the threatening, and against whom?
the radical left is in power
Oh, yeah, that’s why we’re still in Iraq and going into Afghanistan. That’s why Obama’s Administration has forsaken a single-payer health policy for the United States. That’s why his financial programs benefit only bankers. That’s why “homosexual” translators in military intelligence are still being discharged. That’s why the perpetrators of torture under the Bush Administration aren’t being identified and aren’t being prosecuted.
Some simulcram (sp.?–it’s early in the morning here) of the so-called “left” may be in power over there in America, but it sure isn’t “radical”!
I wish no harm on anyone and don’t believe in violence.
You may not wish harm on anyone, but you do believe in violence. You say you are a gun owner.
the radical left is in power
OBAMA IS NOT THE “FAR LEFT.” Please. Give us some credit.
Michael:
I believe in protecting my family. I became a gun owner after numerous incidents, including a police chase that came through my yard when we had too many children to carry them and run. This was a few years ago. I also became interested in collecting certain inexpensive guns for historical value. Just because I’m not a pacifist, that doesn’t mean I believe in violence. Even Christ instructed his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword. I do not “live by the sword”. I did this after careful study of Catholic teaching and Scripture. I will never murder anyone.
Digby:
Why do you think that the current administration remains in Southwest Asia? I agree we shouldn’t have been involved in any war, and I agree we need to pull out. Now. My personal opinion is because they wish to reserve for themselves the coercive power of the state to deal with anyone they wish to force submission upon. That would include people like me. And you, for that matter.
I would like to add this:
My family was booted from the U.S. in the 1800′s for political reasons, fighting against U.S. “Manifest Destiny”. Then they fled Mexico because of an essentially Marxist revolution that ultimately failed and became a kleptocracy. I’ve worked with those who have fled the economic consequences of kleptocracy. I have worked with and worshiped with those who fled Marxism in Vietnam. I’ve worked with the descendants of those who fled the Russian Revolution.
Now riddle me this: Should I ignore history and simply assume all will be well because the left is now in power?
The idea that the radical left is in power in the USA is delusionary dystopian wish-fulfillment that is untethered from reality.
I will never murder anyone.
In understand this. But you indeed believe in the potential use of violence to keep your kids “safe.” Thus, you believe in violence.
Liam – As much as we point out that obvious fact, they just keep right on insisting that “the Left” is in power. Amazing.
Magadalena:
“The public appears to be more afraid of the health care plan than their neighbors whom they see at Town Halls.”
Exacvtly. People are afraid OF Obama. Obama is not whipping up the fear, his opponents are. And they have been since he started running for president.
The right was not afraid when Bush reserved for himself the right to torture anybody for any reason. But they are so afraid of Health Care reform that they have made a visible show of arms.
I suppose conservatives are just more easily frightened than liberals. . .
There is a world of difference between believing in legitimate use of force in a legitimate act of defense of self and others, and believing in violence.
If a person refuses to comply with a rule set forward by the state, then there will be consequences. Further resistance will result in the use of force, up to an including deadly force. If you support this, then by your own reasoning you believe in violence. If you agree that a police officer can utilize a taser, pepper spray, or a night stick to arrest a person attacking you with a club, you believe in violence if we stick with your definition.
So Michael, do you believe in violence, or should the police stand by and watch in the event some thug is beating you senseless with a 2×4? Or perhaps the word “violence” has several senses, and you are using one sense of the word (a particular type of physical force) to equate it with another sense of the word (an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws), when in fact it is a confusion to equate the two senses.
My personal opinion is because they wish to reserve for themselves the coercive power of the state to deal with anyone they wish to force submission upon. That would include people like me. And you, for that matter.
I agree with you. Now, would you possibly consider agreeing with ME that the way to resist the “coercive power of the state” is through more and better education and through PRAYER? Don’t you think that an education system that taught its students solid moral values and built up their character and taught them to have intellectual curiosity and critical reasoning skills might be more instrumental in preserving their liberties than a stupid HANDGUN?!
Should I ignore history and simply assume all will be well because the left is now in power?
There should be a better criterion for judging the moral basis of a government than its political values. To repeat something ONE MORE TIME that I’ve been saying on these threads for months: an election does not a democracy make; a democracy is a CULTURE that is characterised by “an elevated dialogue conducted between a governing class and its subjects” that is mutual, respectful and adult. Say what you want about him, Obama has NOT lied to his constituents about his programs and his governing principles. Many of us, apparently, were not listening hard enough to some of his weasel words, but, in fact, he has not “fixed the intelligence” or promised “victory” or “prosperity” when there is no real possibility of either. He is a paragon of virtue, compared to what preceded him.
My family was booted from the U.S. in the 1800’s for political reasons, fighting against U.S. “Manifest Destiny”.
I know who these people were. You should be proud of them. Your later ancestors should have been proud enough of them to have stayed in Mexico to fight for traditional Mexican values, because the racist Anglo-Saxon gringo culture hadn’t changed its spots by the time the Mexican Marxists were on the rampage.
Doug – Your desire to separate “deadly force” and “violence” is truly bizarre.
Michael,
Your failure to comprehend the difference is even more so.
Why do you keep ignoring the inconvenient facts contradicting the characterization of this event presented in this thread by you and others? Why is it so hard for you or Mark D or anyone to admit you might have ‘jumped the gun’ here (pun intended)!
Boy, it is become so discouraging around here. With a few exceptions, this seems as full of people as invincible in their ignorance and wedded to their preconceptions as “The Corner” or any equivalent ‘rightwing’ website. If once in a while someone around here were honest enough to admit a mistake, a changed opinion, or the possibility of being in error, I’d have a bit more respect for you.
Pride, arrogance, vanity – pharisees can exist on both sides of the spectrum, indeed.
RM
Robert M – I comprehend that there are different types of violence. But for Doug to say he “does not believe in violence” is nonsense when he has a gun and is willing to use it to deliver deadly force to a human being.
Doug’s decision to distinguish between one kind of violence as “legitimate,” calling it force, and another kind which is “illegitimate,” calling it violence, raises the question of who gets to decide of certain expressions of violence are “legitimate” or not and who gets to define the terms. Well, we know in this case, Doug has the gun so he has the power to define “force” and “violence” how HE wants. But at root, it’s all violence.
Why do you keep ignoring the inconvenient facts contradicting the characterization of this event presented in this thread by you and others?
I’m not sure which “inconvenient facts” you think I am ignoring about “the” event. In fact, if you read the report I linked to, this is occurring at multiple events.
If you are referring to the black man with a gun, I’m not sure how you think that fact is “inconvenient” for me. If you noticed, I said that both racism and the “gun-nut” mentality are involved in these events. There are obviously racists involved in these events, as well as gun-nuts. (Black people can be gun nuts too.) Often the two overlap.
“It’s racism…” – except there’s no evidence of that in the few cases reported that I can see. And in this particular case in AZ, even less likely.
“It never happened at Bush events” — but others have has told you from personal experience that it did.
Differences between being admitted into a presidential event and being at a protest outside of one.
At least you’ve gone from “it’s racism and gun nut mentality” to “there are obviously racists involved in these events as well as gun nuts…often (they) overlap”.
Progress.
RM
“It’s racism…” – except there’s no evidence of that in the few cases reported that I can see.
Then you, like so many other americans, are simply blind to the reality of racism. Nothing unusual about that.
“It never happened at Bush events” — but others have has told you from personal experience that it did.
I have seen no reports. I am willing to admit that I am wrong if someone can show me a report of similar activity: armed, american gun-nuts hovering outside of Bush events like vultures.
At least you’ve gone from “it’s racism and gun nut mentality” to “there are obviously racists involved in these events as well as gun nuts…often (they) overlap”.
I haven’t “gone” anywhere.
If once in a while someone around here were honest enough to admit a mistake…I’d have a bit more respect for you.
Obviously you don’t read very well, Robert M.:
I apologize, Robert M.; I put your name down too quickly, meaning to write “jh.”
More gun carrying:
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Gdnz8z2GaG
It is simple enough. They are carrying guns because they would like to kill the President.
Michael,
I assure you I am not ‘blind to the reality of racism’. I am increasingly convinced though that you are.
digby:
Fair catch technically, though I thought it obvious I was referring to admitting to more substantive mistakes than typos or mind slips. Those are easy and don’t usually cost ‘face’ or pride.
Kurt:
Hahaha. Evidence?
RM
Dennis
That was before Bush became President. President Bush’s events were notoriously stage-managed and crowd-checked.
Robert,
Its not funny. The evidence is the guy carrying the sign at the Town Hall meeting reading: “Death To Obama, Death To Michelle And Her Two Stupid Kids.”
Can’t get more blunt than that.
Kurt,
I didn’t see anything indicating that that guy had a gun. How is that guy’s sign indicative that people carrying guns are doing so because they want to kill Obama?
RM
Michael:
There is nothing bizarre about a distinction between violence and force. In fact it’s written into law.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/161.html
When it is lawful, it is called force. The only place in the statute from my state is in reference to a criminal act, not a lawful one.
By refusing to make the distinction, you are in fact making an equivocation, using one sense of the term and equating with a different sense of the term in a situation where the two senses are not equivalent. This leads to logically fallacious reasoning.
In addition, you state that “Doug has the gun so he has the power to define “force” and “violence” how HE wants.” This is not the case at all. It’s written into law. I might add that the law in my state which makes that distinction is entirely consistent with Catholic teaching on legitimate use of force and the principle of double effect. If I use a gun to attack another without provocation, I have committed an act of violence. If I am a participant in mutual combat, I have committed an act of violence. If I respond with an unreasonably disproportionate use of force I have committed an act of violence. If I use force as a last resort and only to the extent necessary to repel an attacker or enable an escape, then I have not committed an act of violence but a legitimate use of just force in the defense of self or others. It’s a huge difference that for apparently political reasons you don’t wish to recognize.
Digby:
You wrote “I agree with you. Now, would you possibly consider agreeing with ME that the way to resist the “coercive power of the state” is through more and better education and through PRAYER?” In fact, I do agree with you on this. But why limit ourselves to one method? Why not have all means at our disposal?
“I know who these people were. You should be proud of them. Your later ancestors should have been proud enough of them to have stayed in Mexico to fight for traditional Mexican values, because the racist Anglo-Saxon gringo culture hadn’t changed its spots by the time the Mexican Marxists were on the rampage.”
If you recall your history, it was precisely the force of arms in the hands of Catholics that forced the Mexican Marxists, in conjunction with prayer and martyrdom that forced the Marxists to end their overt persecution of the Church in Mexico, although legal disabilities remained.
There is nothing bizarre about a distinction between violence and force. In fact it’s written into law.
Of course it’s written into law. That’s my point. You seem to be missing it.
“Force” is is nothing but legitimized violence. If you believe in “force,” then you believe in violence.