"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not?

He was acting irresponsibly and contrary to his own interests. He had
no good reason to be carrying an AR15 and should have known (unless he
_is_ a wack job) that doing so under the circumstances would alarm
most folks. Assert your rights in an irresponsible manner and you're
more likely to compromise than protect them.

In the interest of context, I live in Maine, which has a long
tradition of hunting and gun ownership. I haven't owned a gun myself
in many years, but used to be a pretty good target shooter. I'm
comfortable with my neighbors who own guns, but would wonder about the
judgement of one who showed up at a political rally toting an AR15.

The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

You just poisoned the poll with that remark.

--
Ned Simmons

I would have done the same thing, carry a gun at a political demonstration.
To make my point, which is that I am exercising my rights, just as those
others are exercising theirs of free speech and freedom of assembly. What
are we going to do, refine the Bill of Rights, and just eliminate this one
and that one?

And you, Ned, just poisoned your own well by not commenting that the press
didn't mention he was black, or even show many pictures, and went right off
into white racism, which was not the issue in any way. His actions were not
meant to be a threat to Obama or anyone, just to jog people to think, "You'd
better pay attention, or they will be taking your guns next."

You're not that guy that lives next to Homer Simpson, are you?

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not?

He was acting irresponsibly and contrary to his own interests. He had
no good reason to be carrying an AR15 and should have known (unless he
_is_ a wack job) that doing so under the circumstances would alarm
most folks. Assert your rights in an irresponsible manner and you're
more likely to compromise than protect them.

In the interest of context, I live in Maine, which has a long
tradition of hunting and gun ownership. I haven't owned a gun myself
in many years, but used to be a pretty good target shooter. I'm
comfortable with my neighbors who own guns, but would wonder about the
judgement of one who showed up at a political rally toting an AR15.

The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

You just poisoned the poll with that remark.

--
Ned Simmons

I would have done the same thing, carry a gun at a political
demonstration. To make my point, which is that I am exercising my rights,
just as those others are exercising theirs of free speech and freedom of
assembly.

Well, you have a right to free speech so you can speak your mind, and a
right to freedom of assembly so you can share the expression of your
opinions with others.

So what's the purpose of exercising your right to arm yourself in a
political rally close to the President? Demonstrating your right to shoot
him if you're in the mood? That you can intimidate anyone you damn well
please, with a bullet?

What are we going to do, refine the Bill of Rights, and just eliminate
this one and that one?

And you, Ned, just poisoned your own well by not commenting that the press
didn't mention he was black, or even show many pictures, and went right
off into white racism, which was not the issue in any way.

The AP, CBS, and The New York Times, at the very least, all showed pictures
and video of the guy and I recognized immediately that he was black. None of
the mainstream media that I saw said anything about "white racism."

You're jumping on a bandwagon that's full of crap, Steve.

--
Ed Huntress

SteveB wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might
this be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman
was acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".


Arming yourself, as the guy in question did, with a weapon that isn't loaded
and then strutting around a public gathering.

Someone should have taken his Penis, er.... I mean weapon, away from the guy
and clubbed the living **** out of him with it.
Anyone with half a brain would just have left, and I wonder how many did
just that.
That isn't just "posturing", it's intimidation.

We live in a world where a guy gets fired from his job on a Monday morning
and then comes back and shoots up his former workplace in the afternoon.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might
this be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman
was acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".


Arming yourself, as the guy in question did, with a weapon that isn't
loaded
and then strutting around a public gathering.

Someone should have taken his Penis, er.... I mean weapon, away from the
guy
and clubbed the living **** out of him with it.
Anyone with half a brain would just have left, and I wonder how many did
just that.
That isn't just "posturing", it's intimidation.

We live in a world where a guy gets fired from his job on a Monday morning
and then comes back and shoots up his former workplace in the afternoon.

--
John R. Carroll

John, it's legally termed "brandishing", and yes, it is illegal. This man
did not brandish his weapon, or the PD would have arrested him. I believe
if someone would have done as you suggested and attempted to take the weapon
from him, there would have been a very good donnybrook with people coming to
his aid. At least the Obama people had enough training and indoctrination
to know to leave that one alone, and believe me, if they were acting on
emotion and not training and indoctrination, it probably would have gone
ugly. And I mean REALLY ugly. But even the ACORNbots knew better.

So, if I understand you, it's not okay to peaceably walk around with an
unloaded weapon that is always pointed straight up or straight down, but it
is okay for some spectator to take it away and commit aggravated assault and
mayhem, both felonies, and that would have been okay? A weapon that we have
not yet ascertained by investigation of the press whether or not it was even
operational. (I use the term "press" in the loosest form of the word.) Did
anyone see an orange plug in the end of the barrel which identifies such an
imitation weapon so police can respond accordingly? A person exercising
their rights legally and lawfully under the Constitution of the United
States of America, then has a felony committed against him, and the
perpetrator walks to the sound of applause from half of the crowd? Is that
what you're saying, Bunkie? If so, then you and I are not looking at this
the same way.

You are so against peaceable demonstration, yet so quick to advocate
felonious aggravated assault with grievous bodily harm, as in "weapon, away
from the guy
and clubbed the living **** out of him with it."

As it was, the guy made his point, the police got one right, and ACORN and
the Obamanoids did not get to turn it into a photo-op. They had a nice one
last night when a burly black Obamanoid man was screaming at a policeman,
yet became as docile as a Labrador puppy when the next second he was face to
face with two Tasers.

It's going to get worse. A lot worse. And good for that. Evil lives with
good men do nothing, or something like that. It's time to take control back
from the politicians, lobbyists, hacks, and cronies.

Steve

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 05:46:11 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700, the infamous Gunner Asch
scrawled the following:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

I have mixed emotions about it. On the one hand, it was a statement
that he, along with millions of patriotic Americans, was fed up with
the status quo and fed up with liberal demonrats throwing money away.

OTOH, he gave the moronic HUYAs in the media more anti-gun fodder.

And for which they were caught lying, being patently dishonest. And the
People will remember.

The smart move would have been to have left the gun at home. After
this stunt, when the American Revolution II inevitably kicks in, he'll
likely be instantly targeted and de-weaponed by them revenuer folks.

Unless his friends and others use theirs to defend him. G

Speaking of throwing money away and being completely unaware of the
ecological damage from said actions, how many gallons of gas has Obama
wasted running Air Force One all over hell and back (both globally and
locally) on a daily basis? How many tons of CO2 has he spewed, about
the same as any U.S. _state_ since he was elected? Way to go, Mr.
President! You and your party say one thing and do another.

Well, the voters got their "change", alright. I have yet to see
anything I'm proud of the man for.

Indeed.

Gunner


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:12:25 -0400, Ned Simmons wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not?

He was acting irresponsibly and contrary to his own interests. He had
no good reason to be carrying an AR15 and should have known (unless he
_is_ a wack job) that doing so under the circumstances would alarm
most folks. Assert your rights in an irresponsible manner and you're
more likely to compromise than protect them.

In the interest of context, I live in Maine, which has a long
tradition of hunting and gun ownership. I haven't owned a gun myself
in many years, but used to be a pretty good target shooter. I'm
comfortable with my neighbors who own guns, but would wonder about the
judgement of one who showed up at a political rally toting an AR15.

The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

You just poisoned the poll with that remark.


Full disclosure was what I supplied. I didnt start blabbering about
"armed white racist" when discussing the gentleman, did I?

Your Against vote is noted.

2 for, 1 against so far.


Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:42:09 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Ned Simmons" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not?

He was acting irresponsibly and contrary to his own interests. He had
no good reason to be carrying an AR15 and should have known (unless he
_is_ a wack job) that doing so under the circumstances would alarm
most folks. Assert your rights in an irresponsible manner and you're
more likely to compromise than protect them.

In the interest of context, I live in Maine, which has a long
tradition of hunting and gun ownership. I haven't owned a gun myself
in many years, but used to be a pretty good target shooter. I'm
comfortable with my neighbors who own guns, but would wonder about the
judgement of one who showed up at a political rally toting an AR15.

The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

You just poisoned the poll with that remark.

--
Ned Simmons

I would have done the same thing, carry a gun at a political demonstration.
To make my point, which is that I am exercising my rights, just as those
others are exercising theirs of free speech and freedom of assembly. What
are we going to do, refine the Bill of Rights, and just eliminate this one
and that one?

And you, Ned, just poisoned your own well by not commenting that the press
didn't mention he was black, or even show many pictures, and went right off
into white racism, which was not the issue in any way. His actions were not
meant to be a threat to Obama or anyone, just to jog people to think, "You'd
better pay attention, or they will be taking your guns next."

You're not that guy that lives next to Homer Simpson, are you?

Steve

I believe that makes 3 For, 1 against?

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:32:29 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".

Steve

One assumes that Don was claiming he was waving it about and trying to
look "bad assed"

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:12:25 -0400, Ned Simmons wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not?

He was acting irresponsibly and contrary to his own interests. He had
no good reason to be carrying an AR15 and should have known (unless he
_is_ a wack job) that doing so under the circumstances would alarm
most folks. Assert your rights in an irresponsible manner and you're
more likely to compromise than protect them.

In the interest of context, I live in Maine, which has a long
tradition of hunting and gun ownership. I haven't owned a gun myself
in many years, but used to be a pretty good target shooter. I'm
comfortable with my neighbors who own guns, but would wonder about the
judgement of one who showed up at a political rally toting an AR15.

The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

You just poisoned the poll with that remark.


Full disclosure was what I supplied. I didnt start blabbering about
"armed white racist" when discussing the gentleman, did I?

Who was it that was talking about "armed white racists"? I read several
stories in the mainstream press and saw at least two TV news reports about
it. I don't recall anyone talking about racists, white or black. And it was
immediately clear from the images that the guy was black.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:36:59 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

Gunner

That pesky press just leaves stuff out that they deem unimportant to the
story line. Or what their bosses tell them to include in the news. Until
this day, I did not know he was black. Probably the reason he didn't get
thumped on the spot. Saw a big black guy last night screaming at the
police, "I don't have to leave and you are NOT going to arrest me". One
second later he was looking at a Taser, and his whole mood shifted. Laid on
the ground like a puppy. These people aren't just Joe Average out there.
They are trained people who know how to walk the line, and what to do and
not to do. Lucky, one of ours was out there to make his point about
carrying guns, and nice that the PD ruled he was within his rights.

Steve

Actually..the cops have to (if they are good cops) follow the Law..and
the law in that place said that rifle was legal. Shrug

Its not legal in all places, but it was there and then.

If the anti gunners dont like it..**** on them.

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:36:59 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

Gunner

That pesky press just leaves stuff out that they deem unimportant to the
story line. Or what their bosses tell them to include in the news. Until
this day, I did not know he was black. Probably the reason he didn't get
thumped on the spot. Saw a big black guy last night screaming at the
police, "I don't have to leave and you are NOT going to arrest me". One
second later he was looking at a Taser, and his whole mood shifted. Laid
on
the ground like a puppy. These people aren't just Joe Average out there.
They are trained people who know how to walk the line, and what to do and
not to do. Lucky, one of ours was out there to make his point about
carrying guns, and nice that the PD ruled he was within his rights.

Steve

Actually..the cops have to (if they are good cops) follow the Law..and
the law in that place said that rifle was legal. Shrug

Its not legal in all places, but it was there and then.

If the anti gunners dont like it..**** on them.

That's why sensible people dislike what happened. It was a sociopath's "****
on you" moment.

If you wonder why these things breed so much antagonism by so many people,
look no further than your own postings. In a crowd, there's no way to tell
that the guy (or you) isn't an admirer and follower of Sarah Jane Moore or
Richard Lawrence, who had the bad luck of Squeaky Fromme when he tried to
kill Andrew Jackson.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:52:08 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...
SteveB wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might
this be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman
was acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".


Arming yourself, as the guy in question did, with a weapon that isn't
loaded
and then strutting around a public gathering.

Someone should have taken his Penis, er.... I mean weapon, away from the
guy
and clubbed the living **** out of him with it.
Anyone with half a brain would just have left, and I wonder how many did
just that.
That isn't just "posturing", it's intimidation.

We live in a world where a guy gets fired from his job on a Monday morning
and then comes back and shoots up his former workplace in the afternoon.

--
John R. Carroll

John, it's legally termed "brandishing", and yes, it is illegal. This man
did not brandish his weapon, or the PD would have arrested him. I believe
if someone would have done as you suggested and attempted to take the weapon
from him, there would have been a very good donnybrook with people coming to
his aid. At least the Obama people had enough training and indoctrination
to know to leave that one alone, and believe me, if they were acting on
emotion and not training and indoctrination, it probably would have gone
ugly. And I mean REALLY ugly. But even the ACORNbots knew better.

So, if I understand you, it's not okay to peaceably walk around with an
unloaded weapon that is always pointed straight up or straight down, but it
is okay for some spectator to take it away and commit aggravated assault and
mayhem, both felonies, and that would have been okay? A weapon that we have
not yet ascertained by investigation of the press whether or not it was even
operational. (I use the term "press" in the loosest form of the word.) Did
anyone see an orange plug in the end of the barrel which identifies such an
imitation weapon so police can respond accordingly? A person exercising
their rights legally and lawfully under the Constitution of the United
States of America, then has a felony committed against him, and the
perpetrator walks to the sound of applause from half of the crowd? Is that
what you're saying, Bunkie? If so, then you and I are not looking at this
the same way.

You are so against peaceable demonstration, yet so quick to advocate
felonious aggravated assault with grievous bodily harm, as in "weapon, away
from the guy
and clubbed the living **** out of him with it."

As it was, the guy made his point, the police got one right, and ACORN and
the Obamanoids did not get to turn it into a photo-op. They had a nice one
last night when a burly black Obamanoid man was screaming at a policeman,
yet became as docile as a Labrador puppy when the next second he was face to
face with two Tasers.

It's going to get worse. A lot worse. And good for that. Evil lives with
good men do nothing, or something like that. It's time to take control back
from the politicians, lobbyists, hacks, and cronies.

Steve

"all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing." Edmund Burke, 1770

I rather more like this one, when dealing with Leftards:

"What more is there to say? Pretty soon it will be time to raise the
black flag and start cutting throats. "


"Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with
minimum food or water,in austere conditions, day and night. The only thing
clean on him is his weapon. He doesn't worry about what workout to do---
his rucksack weighs what it weighs, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.
The True Believer doesn't care 'how hard it is'; he knows he either wins or he dies.
He doesn't go home at 1700; he is home. He knows only the 'Cause.' Now, who wants to quit?"

NCOIC of the Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course in a welcome speech to new SF candidates

On Sep 1, 8:46*am, Larry Jaques wrote:

Speaking of throwing money away and being completely unaware of the
ecological damage from said actions, how many gallons of gas has Obama
wasted running Air Force One all over hell and back (both globally and
locally) on a daily basis? *How many tons of CO2 has he spewed, about
the same as any U.S. _state_ since he was elected?

Are you seriously suggesting that the amount of CO2 produced by on 747
is on the same scale as 2% of the total produced in the entire
country? Really? Get a grip, Larry. Kennedy airport in NY averages
about 80 takeoffs and landings PER HOUR every day.
http://flightaware.com/analysis/grap...vt?airport=JFK

But I'm sure it was fun for you to throw around useless made up
"facts".

On Sep 1, 10:42*am, "SteveB" wrote:
"Ned Simmons" wrote in message

...



On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

OK, Gunner. *Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. *I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not?

He was acting irresponsibly and contrary to his own interests. He had
no good reason to be carrying an AR15 and should have known (unless he
_is_ a wack job) that doing so under the circumstances would alarm
most folks. Assert your rights in an irresponsible manner and you're
more likely to compromise than protect them.

In the interest of context, I live in Maine, which has a long
tradition of hunting and gun ownership. I haven't owned a gun myself
in many years, but used to be a pretty good target shooter. I'm
comfortable with my neighbors who own guns, but would wonder about the
judgement of one who showed up at a political rally toting an AR15.

The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

You just poisoned the poll with that remark.

--
Ned Simmons

I would have done the same thing, carry a gun at a political demonstration.

On Sep 1, 1:26*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:12:25 -0400, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

OK, Gunner. *Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. *I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? *

He was acting irresponsibly and contrary to his own interests. He had
no good reason to be carrying an AR15 and should have known (unless he
_is_ a wack job) that doing so under the circumstances would alarm
most folks. Assert your rights in an irresponsible manner and you're
more likely to compromise than protect them.

In the interest of context, I live in Maine, which has a long
tradition of hunting and gun ownership. I haven't owned a gun myself
in many years, but used to be a pretty good target shooter. I'm
comfortable with my neighbors who own guns, but would wonder about the
judgement of one who showed up at a political rally toting an AR15.

The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

You just poisoned the poll with that remark.

Full disclosure was what I supplied. * I didnt start blabbering about
"armed white racist" when discussing the gentleman, did I?

Your Against vote is noted. *

2 for, 1 against so far.


I had an "against' vote yesterday.

I don't know what "main stream media you were looking at that didn't
show pictures of him, but all the networks, CNN and MSNBC had video
showing the guy very clearly.

*Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
*wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
*something damned nasty to all three of them.

And, just for the record, you also have the right to remain silent.
Have you ever tried exercising that one?

On Sep 1, 10:36*am, "SteveB" wrote:
"Gunner Asch" wrote

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? *The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

Gunner

That pesky press just leaves stuff out that they deem unimportant to the
story line. *Or what their bosses tell them to include in the news. *Until
this day, I did not know he was black. *Probably the reason he didn't get
thumped on the spot. *


How did you hear about him, in the first place? The news I saw on TV
(and I watch WAY too much news) on every network, CNN and MSNBC had
clear video of the guy. I don't think his race is at all significant
here, but since you and Gunner are making an issue of it, I'm curious
as to why you would have assumed one race or another.

On Sep 1, 1:30*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:32:29 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

OK, Gunner. *Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. *I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".

Steve

One assumes that Don was claiming he was waving it about and trying to
look "bad assed"

Then one assumes incorrectly, I don't remember Don saying that. Do
you?

The man took an "assault" weapon to a Presidential event that he damn
well knew would be well attended by the press, the police and by the
Secret Service. If that's not big time, "Hey Look at me!" posturing,
I don't know what is.

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/posturing
POSTURE intransitive verb
1 : to assume a posture; especially : to strike a pose for effect
2 : to assume an artificial or pretended attitude

On Sep 1, 1:50*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:36:59 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:

"Gunner Asch" wrote

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? *The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

Gunner

That pesky press just leaves stuff out that they deem unimportant to the
story line. *Or what their bosses tell them to include in the news. *Until
this day, I did not know he was black. *Probably the reason he didn't get
thumped on the spot. *Saw a big black guy last night screaming at the
police, "I don't have to leave and you are NOT going to arrest me". *One
second later he was looking at a Taser, and his whole mood shifted. *Laid on
the ground like a puppy. *These people aren't just Joe Average out there.
They are trained people who know how to walk the line, and what to do and
not to do. *Lucky, one of ours was out there to make his point about
carrying guns, and nice that the PD ruled he was within his rights.

Steve

Actually..the cops have to (if they are good cops) follow the Law..and
the law in that place said that rifle was legal. *Shrug

Its not legal in all places, but it was there and then.

If the anti gunners dont like it..**** on them.

Gunner

*Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
*wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
*something damned nasty to all three of them.

Y'know, this is just another "Just because you can, doesn't mean you
should" moments. The guy most definitely made an ass of himself. He
went to intimidate the crowd and (hopefully) to provoke the law
enforcement people to confront him. He failed miserably on all counts.

On Sep 1, 11:52*am, "SteveB" wrote:

John, it's legally termed "brandishing", and yes, it is illegal. *This man
did not brandish his weapon, or the PD would have arrested him.

Steve - SOMETHING is called "brandishing," and I agree, that's not the
strict legal definition of what this guy did. Even though what he did
was legal (which I don't think it ought to be, but that's a discussion
for another day). it still doesn't make it OK. Legally, I can run a
jackhammer outside my house all day every day from 8AM to 8PM. I'm
just guessing, but I think my neighbors would get pretty ****ed off
after the first ten minutes or so of me exercising my "right to
jackhammer."

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

On Sep 1, 3:51*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:52:08 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...
SteveB wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

OK, Gunner. *Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. *I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might
this be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman
was acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".

Arming yourself, as the guy in question did, with a weapon that isn't
loaded
and then strutting around a public gathering.

Someone should have taken his Penis, er.... I mean weapon, away from the
guy
and clubbed the living **** out of him with it.
Anyone with half a brain would just have left, and I wonder how many did
just that.
That isn't just "posturing", it's intimidation.

We live in a world where a guy gets fired from his job on a Monday morning
and then comes back and shoots up his former workplace in the afternoon.

Larry Jaques wrote:
---major snippo -----------------

Well, the voters got their "change", alright. I have yet to see
anything I'm proud of the man for.


Here's a little video about the hope and change.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03vhWWFcFXE

Cracked me up!


technomaNge
--
A lot of people think I need anger management...
I say "**** them." (Jesse James, Monster Garage)

Don Foreman wrote:


Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


I have to agree with someone down-thread:
It was and it wasn't.

He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.


technomaNge
--
A lot of people think I need anger management...
I say "**** them." (Jesse James, Monster Garage)

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:33:24 -0500, the infamous technomaNge
scrawled the following:

Larry Jaques wrote:
---major snippo -----------------

Well, the voters got their "change", alright. I have yet to see
anything I'm proud of the man for.


Here's a little video about the hope and change.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03vhWWFcFXE

Cracked me up!

Yeah, especially at the end, when she comes to her senses.

--
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority.
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to
be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster

"technomaNge" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:


Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


I have to agree with someone down-thread:
It was and it wasn't.

He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.


technomaNge

The job of the press is to objectively and impartially report facts. How is
it possible to "push their buttons"?

Steve

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:40:57 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Let the Record show that Gunner Asch on
or about Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700 did write/type or cause to
appear in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

My experience has lead me to the conclusion that the Left is full
of racist bigots, who judge a man by the color of his skin, and not
the content of his character.
Now, I might not have brought a rifle near a political rally, but
that's just my own sensibilities. (As in, "I don't want to lug the
rifle around all day.")

Need some slings? I have lots of extras.

Maybe a nice Cobra sheepskin lined sling to go on your AR?

Gunner

-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

SteveB wrote:


He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.


technomaNge

The job of the press is to objectively and impartially report facts. How is
it possible to "push their buttons"?

That is their job, alright. I just wish they would do it instead of
claiming a white racist with a gun was at a political rally.

You didn't see the hysterical claims of "could have attacked someone"
or in this thread "intimidating people"?



technomaNge
--
A lot of people think I need anger management...
I say "**** them." (Jesse James, Monster Garage)

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Tue, 01 Sep 2009
00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch, wrote:

Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

It's ARIZONA! Any day of the week you can go to
an auto parts store in Flag, and find at least 10% of
the customers there with sidearms carried openly. You
can walk down the streets of Sedona and see guys
wearing six-shooters. Are these people ALL trying
to intimidate me? It takes a special kind of
insecurity to make that jump in logic.

People from MN and NJ need to spend a little time
in AZ to see for themselves that there's no more
ill-will behind everyday open carry than there is when
someone walks around with a Leatherman on his belt.
Both are tools, generally carried for the purpose of
"just in case," nothing more.

Was the guy carrying an AR-15 trying to "say"
something? Sure, I imagine so... just like a bumper
sticker, he was advertising his message. I don't have
any bumper stickers, and I don't openly carry. People
who want to do that have every right though, and it
impinges on my rights not one whit.

Talk about responsibility that accompanies rights,
it is YOUR responsibility, New Jersians, Minnesotans,
et al., to respect others' choice to voice their
opinions, whether the voice is in a newspaper editorial,
a blog, a bumper sticker, a town meeting, or even an
open carry. Disagree with the message all you want,
but don't disparage the right to voice it.

A couple of points, Steve. First, I *have* spent some time in Arizona, and I
have hunted there, north of Ft. Apache, with a handgun on my hip in open
carry, even when I wasn't hunting. Second, I have to respect the man's
rights, but I don't have to respect the man's actions.

You say you "imagine" that the man was trying to say something. What do you
suppose he was trying to "say"? When people speak with loaded firearms in a
crowd, I'd like to know what their message is. The only ones I can think of
have to do with intimidation. Can you clear that up for us?

--
Ed Huntress

"technomaNge" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:


He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.


technomaNge

The job of the press is to objectively and impartially report facts. How
is it possible to "push their buttons"?

That is their job, alright. I just wish they would do it instead of
claiming a white racist with a gun was at a political rally.

Where did you see the claim that it was a "white racist"? You sure as hell
don't believe anything Gunner tells you, do you? Did you see it for
yourself, or are you just feeding on Gunner's droppings?

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 1, 1:50*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
Actually..the cops have to (if they are good cops) follow the Law..and
the law in that place said that rifle was legal. *Shrug

Its not legal in all places, but it was there and then.

If the anti gunners dont like it..**** on them.

Gunner

- Show quoted text -

Unfortunately, the cops don't have to follow the law - they can do
pretty much as they wish.

Case in point, which Ned may remember. Portland, Maine, ten plus
years ago. Guy from one of the surrounding towns goes to a nighttime
fair in Portland. Remembers he has a pistol with him in his truck, no
CCW permit. His options:

1. Hide pistol under seat, lock truck. Probably the sanest course of
action. Unfortunately, this would have been a violation of the
concealed weapons statutes.

2. Leave pistol on seat in plain view, lock truck. Legal.

3. Carry pistol on his person, concealed. Illegal. Again, he had no
CCW permit.

4. Carry holstered pistol openly on his person. Perfectly legal.

5. Go home.

Not wanting to go home, he had two legal options. Leaving his pistol
on the seat of his truck would have been just a little bit stupid, so
he chose to carry it. You can guess the rest. Fearful citizen
reports it to the cops, cops detain and question him, pistol is
confiscated. It is my recollection that he was arrested as well, but
I can't find anything in the local paper's online archives.

When he goes to the police station the next day to get his pistol
back, the police chief decides that he is a gun nut and refuses to
give it back. Guy hires a lawyer, chief refuses to return gun.
Lawyer gets a court order, chief refuses to return gun. It took him
six months to a year - and some serious legal expenses - to finally
get it back.

John Martin

In , on Tue, 1 Sep 2009 23:28:41 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Tue, 01 Sep 2009
00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch, wrote:

Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

It's ARIZONA! Any day of the week you can go to
an auto parts store in Flag, and find at least 10% of
the customers there with sidearms carried openly. You
can walk down the streets of Sedona and see guys
wearing six-shooters. Are these people ALL trying
to intimidate me? It takes a special kind of
insecurity to make that jump in logic.

People from MN and NJ need to spend a little time
in AZ to see for themselves that there's no more
ill-will behind everyday open carry than there is when
someone walks around with a Leatherman on his belt.
Both are tools, generally carried for the purpose of
"just in case," nothing more.

Was the guy carrying an AR-15 trying to "say"
something? Sure, I imagine so... just like a bumper
sticker, he was advertising his message. I don't have
any bumper stickers, and I don't openly carry. People
who want to do that have every right though, and it
impinges on my rights not one whit.

Talk about responsibility that accompanies rights,
it is YOUR responsibility, New Jersians, Minnesotans,
et al., to respect others' choice to voice their
opinions, whether the voice is in a newspaper editorial,
a blog, a bumper sticker, a town meeting, or even an
open carry. Disagree with the message all you want,
but don't disparage the right to voice it.


A couple of points, Steve. First, I *have* spent some time in Arizona, and I
have hunted there, north of Ft. Apache,

I lived north of Ft. Apache for a short while. You
might recognize the name Whiteriver.

with a handgun on my hip in open carry, even when I wasn't hunting.

Who were you trying to intimidate?
Did you see anyone else carrying? If so, why did you
feel intimidated?

Second, I have to respect the man's
rights, but I don't have to respect the man's actions.

There's a distinction without a difference. If
we were talking free speech, sure, you can say, "I
respect the man's right to say whatever he wants
even if I disagree with him." Somehow, I can't see
that as analogous to the open carry situation.
Wouldn't it go something like, "I respect the man's
right to carry, but I don't think he should *actually*
carry." ??? How is that "respecting" his right?

You say you "imagine" that the man was trying to say something. What do you
suppose he was trying to "say"?

I don't know exactly. That's the problem with non-
verbal communication, hence the word "imagine."
Most likely he was simply demonstrating that he was
aware of his right, in which case the message might
have read something like, "I LOVE this country we live
in where I have this right! A right not exercised is
a right waived, and I'm making sure *I* won't be part
of those inclined to let such a right lapse."

Or he might have been exhibiting signs of a mid-life
crisis much like other guys might buy a big bike, or a
fast convertible in which case the message might have
been more like, "Hey, look at me... I've got enough
money I can throw it away on a tool that'll probably
never be used in the contingency for which it was
purchased... but dayum, don't I look good carryin' it!"

Or maybe the message was more like, "****, my pickup
died two blocks from here, and I didn't dare leave this
7 lb. invitation to break into the vehicle."

Or... it might have been whatever nefarious intent
you've ascribed... which is what exactly? You keep
using the word "intimidate" without saying how the
mere presence of a tool is intimidating.

When people speak with loaded firearms in a
crowd,

So, you've somehow determined it was loaded. I didn't
see that in any of the reports I read or youtubed. What
did you see that I didn't?

I'd like to know what their message is.

Really? Even though you weren't there, and the
guy at issue is completely irrelevant to your life.
You are so insecure that just seeing something on TV
3000 miles away makes you uneasy. If you were there,
you could have asked him. If I'd been there, I could
have asked him too, but I wouldn't have. His reasons
are his reasons. None of my business. If we were
having a conversation, the issue would probably have
been broached eventually though. ;-)

The only ones I can think of have to do with
intimidation.

Ah, quite a limited imagination. Yet you carried
a loaded and dangerous handgun in public apparently
without feeling particularly intimidating. Am I
detecting a disconnect?

Can you clear that up for us?

Absent the availability of the guy to ask, I can
only imagine his specific motivations and intended
message. If pressed, I'm sure I could imagine more
reasons than those above. But you can't. Strange.

--
˜¯˜¯

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:47:59 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

Gunner

There's a model query with no hint of bias toward suggested response!
G

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 20:41:49 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:



It's ARIZONA! Any day of the week you can go to
an auto parts store in Flag, and find at least 10% of
the customers there with sidearms carried openly. You
can walk down the streets of Sedona and see guys
wearing six-shooters. Are these people ALL trying
to intimidate me? It takes a special kind of
insecurity to make that jump in logic.

People from MN and NJ need to spend a little time
in AZ to see for themselves that there's no more
ill-will behind everyday open carry than there is when
someone walks around with a Leatherman on his belt.
Both are tools, generally carried for the purpose of
"just in case," nothing more.

Point noted. If most gentle citizens of AZ regard open carry of an
assault rifle at a political rally or other civic gathering as
routine and unremarkable then there's no intimidation. Do you assert
that this is so?

The question remains regarding what peril the assault rifle might be
"just in case" against but that question is equally applicable to
legal open or concealed carry or a sidearm.

Open handgun carry is legal in most of Minnesota but I've never seen
it practiced. Long guns as rifles and shotguns for hunting are routine
and unremarkable but not assault rifles designed for combat.

Was the guy carrying an AR-15 trying to "say"
something? Sure, I imagine so... just like a bumper
sticker, he was advertising his message. I don't have
any bumper stickers, and I don't openly carry. People
who want to do that have every right though, and it
impinges on my rights not one whit.

Talk about responsibility that accompanies rights,
it is YOUR responsibility, New Jersians, Minnesotans,
et al., to respect others' choice to voice their
opinions, whether the voice is in a newspaper editorial,
a blog, a bumper sticker, a town meeting, or even an
open carry. Disagree with the message all you want,
but don't disparage the right to voice it.

I think this Minnesotan has clearly and consistently shown ample
respect and invitation for others' opinions while respectfully
expressing mine. I will admit to vigorously responding to ad hominem
attacks from time to time in the past. Incoming does invite or
require return fire, wouldn't you say?

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:32:29 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".

Steve

One assumes that Don was claiming he was waving it about and trying to
look "bad assed"

Gunner

Close. My take was that his presence with slung assault rifle was
trying to look badass, waving or not. I still think that, but that
may be my midwestern mentality. That is definitely how it would look
in Minneapolis, and quite probably in Starbuck and McGregor as well.
I've about no experience in Arizona so I defer to others who live
there and know how things work there.

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:47:55 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"technomaNge" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:


Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


I have to agree with someone down-thread:
It was and it wasn't.

He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.


technomaNge

The job of the press is to objectively and impartially report facts. How is
it possible to "push their buttons"?

Steve

The job of the press is to create revenue for the owners and
stockholders. Anything that might increase their circulation or
ratings will push their buttons.

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 01:23:27 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:32:29 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".

Steve

One assumes that Don was claiming he was waving it about and trying to
look "bad assed"

Gunner

Close. My take was that his presence with slung assault rifle was
trying to look badass, waving or not. I still think that, but that
may be my midwestern mentality. That is definitely how it would look
in Minneapolis, and quite probably in Starbuck and McGregor as well.
I've about no experience in Arizona so I defer to others who live
there and know how things work there.


Ooohh! We have a revison..slight..but a revision non the less!

Be still my heart!



"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

"technomaNge" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:


He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.


technomaNge

The job of the press is to objectively and impartially report facts. How
is it possible to "push their buttons"?

That is their job, alright. I just wish they would do it instead of
claiming a white racist with a gun was at a political rally.

You didn't see the hysterical claims of "could have attacked someone" or
in this thread "intimidating people"?



technomaNge

No, I don't watch "the news" a lot. Except Fox. These press people are
becoming scary.

Steve

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:30:13 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 08:32:29 -0600, "SteveB" wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:42:26 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:



OK, Gunner. Let it be clear from this point forward that I did not
and do not advocate suppressing anyone's rights. I do advocate
responsible behavior and disdain posturing with firearms. Might this
be a midwestern concept you find incomprehensible?

I find that it appears to be a midwest concept that the gentleman was
acting irresponsibly and posturing.

Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.

Define "posturing".

Steve

One assumes that Don was claiming he was waving it about and trying to
look "bad assed"

Gunner

Close. My take was that his presence with slung assault rifle was
trying to look badass, waving or not. I still think that, but that
may be my midwestern mentality. That is definitely how it would look
in Minneapolis, and quite probably in Starbuck and McGregor as well.
I've about no experience in Arizona so I defer to others who live
there and know how things work there.

I find it odd that Minnesotans are so afraid of guns in an area where guns
and hunting is so common, yet have little reaction to the threat of Al
Franken. Why is that?

Steve

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:47:55 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"technomaNge" wrote in message
...
Don Foreman wrote:


Shall we ask the other readers if it was, or wasnt?

Yes, let's do that. That could be interesting.


I have to agree with someone down-thread:
It was and it wasn't.

He was pushing the media's buttons. That doesn't
always produce the expected result.


technomaNge

The job of the press is to objectively and impartially report facts. How
is
it possible to "push their buttons"?

Steve

The job of the press is to create revenue for the owners and
stockholders. Anything that might increase their circulation or
ratings will push their buttons.

Then, with the exception of some journalists, they are gutless cowards.

Steve

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Tue, 1 Sep 2009 23:28:41 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Tue, 01 Sep 2009
00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch, wrote:

Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing
in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact
he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

It's ARIZONA! Any day of the week you can go to
an auto parts store in Flag, and find at least 10% of
the customers there with sidearms carried openly. You
can walk down the streets of Sedona and see guys
wearing six-shooters. Are these people ALL trying
to intimidate me? It takes a special kind of
insecurity to make that jump in logic.

People from MN and NJ need to spend a little time
in AZ to see for themselves that there's no more
ill-will behind everyday open carry than there is when
someone walks around with a Leatherman on his belt.
Both are tools, generally carried for the purpose of
"just in case," nothing more.

Was the guy carrying an AR-15 trying to "say"
something? Sure, I imagine so... just like a bumper
sticker, he was advertising his message. I don't have
any bumper stickers, and I don't openly carry. People
who want to do that have every right though, and it
impinges on my rights not one whit.

Talk about responsibility that accompanies rights,
it is YOUR responsibility, New Jersians, Minnesotans,
et al., to respect others' choice to voice their
opinions, whether the voice is in a newspaper editorial,
a blog, a bumper sticker, a town meeting, or even an
open carry. Disagree with the message all you want,
but don't disparage the right to voice it.


A couple of points, Steve. First, I *have* spent some time in Arizona,
and I
have hunted there, north of Ft. Apache,

I lived north of Ft. Apache for a short while. You
might recognize the name Whiteriver.

Yeah. I've hunted on the White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation a couple
of different years. I've also spent weeks in and around Phoenix, and
Scottsdale, where a guy named Huntress used to be the mayor. Yes, he's a
relative.


with a handgun on my hip in open carry, even when I wasn't hunting.

Who were you trying to intimidate?

Nobody. There was no one around to intimidate. No one even knew we were
there, except the Apache reservation officials we called to tell where we
would be camping. I just never took the gun off until I went to bed. And
there were some tin cans to shoot. after I bagged my peeg. g

Did you see anyone else carrying? If so, why did you
feel intimidated?

Two of us in the group of four were carrying, as I recall. We were the two
who were hunting javelina with handguns. We didn't see another person for a
week.

The circumstances -- being out in a remote area with some guys I knew,
hunting -- were hardly intimidating. Attending a political rally of angry
people, some of whom are carrying guns, is a lot more unsettling.

You carry a gun with the intention, or the possibility, that you're going to
shoot it. I was out to shoot a javelina (although I wound up shooting mine
with a rifle because they stayed out of range). What, or whom, was the
gun-toter going to shoot at a political rally in broad daylight, patrolled
by police?

The man was "monitored" by Phoenix police detective J. Oliver, who was
keeping an eye on the gun-toter and also watching for anyone who "would want
to harm him," as the detective said. It was a hot situation. The SS said
that no one was getting into the building where Obama was to attend, with a
gun. They were vigilant for the possibility of a threat. Which man with a
gun might be the threat? How would you know? Do you wait until he shoots?


Second, I have to respect the man's
rights, but I don't have to respect the man's actions.

There's a distinction without a difference. If
we were talking free speech, sure, you can say, "I
respect the man's right to say whatever he wants
even if I disagree with him." Somehow, I can't see
that as analogous to the open carry situation.
Wouldn't it go something like, "I respect the man's
right to carry, but I don't think he should *actually*
carry." ??? How is that "respecting" his right?

The man has a right to defend himself. This wasn't about defending himself.
As several of the gun-toters made plain, they were making a "statement."
What isn't clear is what that "statement" was supposed to be. Whatever it
was, it involved a threat of pulling a trigger. And if he wasn't prepared to
pull a trigger, or to impress people with the possibility that he could pull
a trigger, why was he carrying a gun? It wasn't a fashion accessory.


You say you "imagine" that the man was trying to say something. What do
you
suppose he was trying to "say"?

I don't know exactly. That's the problem with non-
verbal communication, hence the word "imagine."

Yeah, now you're getting it. There's a man with a gun at a political rally,
and you just don't know what he's doing in that situation, do you? Do you
think he's hunting pigs, maybe? Or maybe two-legged game? It isn't likely
he's planning to shoot someone in self-defense, do you think? I don't think
so. That's not what he said, anyway. Neither did the guy in New Hampshire
who gave some interviews.

Most likely he was simply demonstrating that he was
aware of his right, in which case the message might
have read something like, "I LOVE this country we live
in where I have this right! A right not exercised is
a right waived, and I'm making sure *I* won't be part
of those inclined to let such a right lapse."

Maybe we should let random civilian visitors carry when they visit the White
House on tours. You think? I mean, they'd just be exercising their right,
correct?

How about at a high school football game? You have a great view from the
stands. You could adjust the elevation on your 'scope while you watch the
hated opponents score a touchdown. That only makes sense, doesn't it? And it
would make quite a statement to the opposing quarterback.


Or he might have been exhibiting signs of a mid-life
crisis much like other guys might buy a big bike, or a
fast convertible in which case the message might have
been more like, "Hey, look at me... I've got enough
money I can throw it away on a tool that'll probably
never be used in the contingency for which it was
purchased... but dayum, don't I look good carryin' it!"

You never know. And that's the problem. Let's hope he doesn't get all worked
up and angry, attending a highly emotional rally and with all those
two-legged targets out there who (in the Arizona case) are Obama supporters
and who want to...well, you'll see below what he thinks they want to do, and
what he thinks should be done about it.


Or maybe the message was more like, "****, my pickup
died two blocks from here, and I didn't dare leave this
7 lb. invitation to break into the vehicle."

May be. But it wasn't. The ones who were asked, such as William Kostric in
New Hampshire, said they had their guns with them to make a statement.


Or... it might have been whatever nefarious intent
you've ascribed... which is what exactly? You keep
using the word "intimidate" without saying how the
mere presence of a tool is intimidating.

Steve, I'm going to assume you're not a complete naif and we can say some
things about this situation that are obvious to any sentient adult. Let me
preface it by saying that I've been a gun owner for just over 50 years now,
that I was an NRA-certified rifle instructor for 15 years, as well as a DCM
range officer, and that I spent about three years as an editorialist and
volunteer state lobbyist fighting gun control legislation. I'm a current NRA
member.

So, here are the bald facts that only a moron or a juvenile fool would deny.
These "tools," such as the AR15, or William Kostric's 9mm S&W, are designed
to kill people, period. So the rifles don't have select fire -- that's not a
matter of choice by their owners, only the result of an annoying law.
Everything else about them is pure people-killing machine. That's what the
"tool" is for. It wasn't designed for hunting animals. It wasn't designed
for shooting paper targets. Most people limit their actual use to those
functions, but that isn't what the guns were designed to do. It isn't why
they carry handguns on city streets, open or concealed. Oh, and Gunner uses
his for drilling holes in leather belts, but he's kind of strange in more
ways that one, as we know. g

Every normal adult knows this, pro-gun or anti-gun. They also know that this
fact is the basis of any symbolism or "message" involved in carrying one of
those things to a political rally. The people carrying them aren't making a
statement about target shooting, or tool maintenance, or hunting rabbits.
Whatever "statement" they're making hinges on the fact that these "tools"
are for killing people. Period.

Now, the gun-toters may be focused on their right to self-defense -- in
other words, their right to shoot certain people under specific
circumstances -- and that's all they think they're "saying" with their guns.
If so, even most people who support that right know that the real issue here
is not that at all. It's about the symbolism of carrying a gun -- and all
guns are loaded, in the classes I taught -- to a heated political event with
a president involved. We have an unfortunate set of memories about guns in
those circumstances. If we have anything like normal emotions, red flags and
hackles go up all over the place when some unknown person is seen packing a
gun at a political rally. (Chris Matthews pressed this point with the NH
gun-toter, who never acknowledged or addressed it. But it was THE reason he
was getting all of the attention.)

And those gun-toters know that. That's the source of the shock value they're
going for, that they're counting on, and that gets them the media attention
that they're seeking. Kostric sounded like he had been practicing his little
speech in front of a mirror for days. He probably had. (Kostric, as you've
probably seen from the several recorded interviews, is a level-headed and
articulate guy who just doesn't get it. Or, rather, he only gets what HE
cares about, and ignores what has caused so many others to care about the
circumstances.)

The NRA has refused comment on the issue, because they know it's a lose-lose
situation for them. They're aware of the negative political fallout they'd
generate if they supported the gun-toters, and the negative effect they'd
have with the hard-core membership if they didn't. So they've just shut up
about it.

The gun-toters are less politically savvy -- or like Gunner, they just say
"**** on 'em." They really don't care what anyone else thinks. This is
perhaps the mildest form of an antisocial personality, but, combined with
guns, it's still an incindiary circumstance. We have here people who are
carrying "tools" designed for killing people in a socially intense
situation, and they don't care what anyone thinks -- except that they want
attention for *their* politics. Whoopie. That really makes those other
people -- the ones the gun-toters don't care about -- pretty damned edgy.

Edgy is not good, in the politics of gun ownership and gun control. We
really don't know anything about those gun-toters, or we didn't before they
thrust themselves and their guns into our attention and our civil lives. Why
should we trust them? We have no reason to trust them at all. All we know
about them is that they don't give a damn what anyone thinks, that they're
packing "tools" designed for killing people at an event in which lots of
people are massed together and arguing and yelling, and that the president
is nearby -- maybe within range of a lucky shot. Whoopie. They may be nuts,
and nuts with guns at political rallies are not good.

And if they're not nuts, how would we know? Human beings survive by making
snap judgments. Life is impossible without them. And the snap judgment that
many will make here is that anyone who doesn't care what others think and
who brings guns to political rallies probably has some loose wiring between
their ears. Loose wiring and guns are not a good combination. Nuts or not,
these gun-toters are a little twitchy.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, put it this way:
"I just don't think it's politically intelligent. I would like to see gun
owners think twice before they go to a rally like that with a firearm
strapped on. It doesn't necessarily put our best face forward."

For that, Gottlieb will be awarded the Understatement Award of the Week. g

Now, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you don't have to
be convinced of these things, which are self-evident to anyone who has lived
in the US for a few decades or more and who has normal intelligence and some
sense of the volatility of public opinion. If we aren't in agreement here
you'd might as well stop reading, because any possibility of discussing the
issue intelligently is out the window.


When people speak with loaded firearms in a
crowd,

So, you've somehow determined it was loaded. I didn't
see that in any of the reports I read or youtubed. What
did you see that I didn't?

Christopher Broughton, the AR-15 guy, said his gun was loaded. You should
keep up. The press in Arizona is really having a field day with him, who
said to a Phoenix New Times blogger, about Obama's future death, "However it
happens, I'm going be happy that it happens. I'm gonna be a happy man...I
would rejoice." Broughton says that people who support abortion are
murderers, and that someone should kill them. He also says that it would
have been good if someone had taken out Adolf Hitler when they had the
chance. Then he walks into a rally of mostly Obama supporters, carrying a
loaded AR-15. Hmm....
There's your gun-toting citizen, making his statement.

And there is Chris Matthews' interview with William Kostric, the New
Hampshire gun-toter (who actually is from Tempe, AZ, which he left for NH a
year ago because he thinks AZ's gun laws are "too restricive," as we've
recently learned, and who belongs to the same anti-government group as
Broughton): "Who would be silly enough to carry an unloaded firearm?"
Kostric said in the interview.

If they were loaded, would you then say they couldn't carry them? Make up
your mind, Steve: they either have the right to carry loaded guns in a
political rally or not. And it's loaded ones you're defending, right? Or are
you only defending carrying unloaded guns? If you'd defend both, then what
is the issue for you, whether his gun is loaded or not? I smell a red
herring in the Arizona desert. g


I'd like to know what their message is.

Really? Even though you weren't there, and the
guy at issue is completely irrelevant to your life.

No he's not. The consequences of what the whack-jobs do has a very
substantial effect on *my* rights. If one of them shoots somebody at a
rally, or if they even brandish a gun and are arrested on a gun charge at
some political gathering, or if they say something threatening and it's
carried on the evening news, watch how fast we're back in the gun-control
battles all over again. I've fought that war once, and I don't want some
nutjob ruining something that many of us have fought so hard for.

You are so insecure that just seeing something on TV
3000 miles away makes you uneasy.

Oh, stuff it. It has nothing to do with my security. It has to do with my
concern for this civil society we all live in.

If you were there,
you could have asked him. If I'd been there, I could
have asked him too, but I wouldn't have. His reasons
are his reasons. None of my business.

Right. You don't care what or whom he might threaten -- or shoot.

Hey, Steve -- it damned well IS your business, and mine, and everyone
else's. This isn't a guy defending his house. It's a guy walking into a
crowded political rally packing a gun. We know what he's equipped to do, but
what is his intention? How do you know?

If we were
having a conversation, the issue would probably have
been broached eventually though. ;-)

The only ones I can think of have to do with
intimidation.

Ah, quite a limited imagination. Yet you carried
a loaded and dangerous handgun in public apparently
without feeling particularly intimidating. Am I
detecting a disconnect?

No, but I'm detecting your imagination running away with you. There was no
"in public." The nearest "public" was probably 10 miles away from where we
were camping.


Can you clear that up for us?

I just did.


Absent the availability of the guy to ask, I can
only imagine his specific motivations and intended
message. If pressed, I'm sure I could imagine more
reasons than those above. But you can't. Strange.

I'll bet you could. And all of them would be wrong -- except for one. Which
one? That's the question. That's what a SS agent is asking himself as he
positions and moves around as necessary to make sure he has a clear shot at
the guy.

There is nothing "strange" about it. The people who have to deal with the
reality of it, the police and SS agents, have to assume he'll threaten or
shoot. Of all of the possibilities, the one with real consequence is that
one. That's why they said he wasn't going to get inside of the "perimeter
they had in mind." One presumes that means they were prepared to stop him in
any way necessary if he tried -- and "any way necessary" expands
significantly if the guy is carrying a gun. And their entire behavior, which
is the one that has to deal with the reality of the situation, is geared
toward taking him out, because they recognize a potential threat when they
see one. They're as expert as one can be on that subject.

That's the "possibility" that matters. That's the one that every sensible
person recognizes. And the gun-toters know it, and they know that is the
implication of their action that's going to get them on the evening news.
And it did.

One final thing: You appear to be missing some of the Broughton material
that's come out over the past two weeks. The guy is a nutjob to the core.
Kostric is a much more complicated case. He's smart and presents himself
well. The hell of it is, when you're dealing with unknown people carrying
guns at political rallies, and there are people around like Broughton who
wish the President was dead, you never know when the two of those things
might come together and present a threat. As we know now, those two things
came together in AR-totin' Christopher Broughton. I hope the SS had him in
their sights and were ready, should he have decided to act on his beliefs.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 22:56:21 -0600, Steve Ackman


A couple of points, Steve. First, I *have* spent some time in Arizona, and I
have hunted there, north of Ft. Apache,

I lived north of Ft. Apache for a short while. You
might recognize the name Whiteriver.

with a handgun on my hip in open carry, even when I wasn't hunting.

Who were you trying to intimidate?
Did you see anyone else carrying? If so, why did you
feel intimidated?

Second, I have to respect the man's
rights, but I don't have to respect the man's actions.

There's a distinction without a difference. If
we were talking free speech, sure, you can say, "I
respect the man's right to say whatever he wants
even if I disagree with him." Somehow, I can't see
that as analogous to the open carry situation.
Wouldn't it go something like, "I respect the man's
right to carry, but I don't think he should *actually*
carry." ??? How is that "respecting" his right?

It respects his (and my) rights by asking voluntary restraint from
irrational behavior that could jeopardize our 2d amendment rights.

The fact that he can does not mean he should in some circumstances.
His right to free speech would not make his shouting of epithets at a
church picnic less offensive.

(snip)

When people speak with loaded firearms in a
crowd,

So, you've somehow determined it was loaded. I didn't
see that in any of the reports I read or youtubed. What
did you see that I didn't?

If you ever assume that any firearm is *NOT* loaded you need some
remedial training ASAP.