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

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.

I don't need to spend time in AZ to take your word for that. I admit
to finding it a bit surprising. Open carry is legal in most of MN but
nobody does it in towns or urban settings.

The actions and "statement" of the guy in AZ were noted in places far
removed from AZ, thanks to the media. I don't question, challenge or
deny that his act was within his rights, that is NOT MY POINT. I
maintain that his act was ill-considered and foolish as regards the
preservation of his rights and mine. That's the part that bothers
me.

His act is only a viable statement if it's remarkable. If his conduct
is unremarkable in AZ, as you assert, then it was a faint statement
there. If it is remarkable in other places then it could well be
taken as a defiant "screw you" to people who live in places that are
culturally quite different from Arizona. Statements like that are
not likely to win support for his viewpoint in such places, quite the
contrary. "Screw you" can cut both ways.

The 2d amendment is not an inalienable or God-given right. If the
people of our country were to become sufficiently offended by damned
fools offensively abusing their 2d amendment rights, those rights
could be curtailed or eliminated. The 18th amendment was reversed and
repealed by the 21st. If the act in question wasn't offensive to
people in AZ it still certainly could be to citizens in other parts of
the country.

One media-darling-for-a-day damned fool isn't an epidemic. I'm not
worried, but I'm still bothered a bit by one who must display his
weapon in public, in crowds, at a political rally, to "make a
statement". I interpret that "statement" as "lookitme, I'm
significant because I have a gun and the right to carry it whether you
like it or not!" That interpretation of defiance is supported by his
reported death wish for the president.

You may interpret his "statement" differently in Arizona.

BTW and FYI, I am emphatically NOT a supporter of Obama.





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.

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:15:22 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

snip


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.

So, other people of like mind were NOT intimidated
by your open carry. Therefore carrying a loaded
weapon in and of itself is not intimidating.

Of course not. The whole point was the *situation* in which those characters
were carrying. It was the proximity to the president, and the environment of
a group of political demonstrators, that got them the attention they so
eagerly sought. And they got it, as they know perfectly well, because they
created an ambiguous "message" that implied a threat. That's why the media
were there. And getting attention was their whole point. If there hadn't
been the ambiguity of the "message," including the possibility of a threat,
no one would have paid attention.


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.

If you say it's unsettling TO YOU, I'll have to
grant you that. To omit the caveat is to assume you
know how everyone else is feeling.

If you didn't notice, the question of whether they were threatening
anyone -- the president or the protesters -- received a huge amount of press
and blog attention, by thousands of people who also found it unsettling.
Obviously, the issue was unsettling to far more people than me.

You probably know who Dave Kopel is, every gun nut's favorite researcher.
Here's the comment he made about it:

"While I think it's really paranoid for some of the media to falsely
characterize this as people trying to threaten the president, I think it
shows bad judgement to carry [guns] near a presidential speech," he says.
Protesters are "trying to make a statement about Second Amendment rights,
but they're doing it in a way that probably sets back that cause."

I believe Kopel is right. Most people aren't going to be moved by the
strained arguments like the one you're making here, Steve. You may convince
yourself and fellow gun nutz with your self-defined syllogistic argument but
Kopel has his finger on the political pulse, and he recognizes that the net
effect will probably be negative. In other words, more people will be
alarmed than not. This makes sense to anyone who remembers the two
Kennedy's, Reagan, and Ford.

I'm waiting to see a poll on this but I haven't seen one yet. But I think
the following statement by a former Secret Service agent sums up the typical
reaction:

"'Former Secret Service Agent Joseph Petro, the author of "Standing Next to
History," says gun-wielding protesters do run the risk of distracting local
police and the Secret Service from their job.

"'But he agrees with Levin that greatest concern is the message this sends
to those who would wish to harm the president. "These people could be
stimulating, encouraging, inciting the nut cases on the fringe that might
actually want to do something either against the president or a group of
people," Mr. Petro says. "It's creating a very negative and dangerous
atmosphere at these protests.'"

In terms of political consequences, it isn't a rights issue or a gun-control
issue. It's about the things we've learned about unsuspected killers and
security over the last five or six decades, which is planted deeply in
voters' minds.

The relevant fact about toting guns at such events is that it makes security
practically impossible. Any sensible person recognizes this, which is why
your arguments are not convincing outside of your circle of like-minded
types. Former SS and police security experts have been saying for a week
that the gun-toters will have the inevitable effect of requiring the SS to
expand the gun-free zone around the president.

That's probably a very good idea.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 18:32:15 -0600, Steve Ackman


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?

Generally ad hominem is admit of defeat. If you
have a valid point, it makes more sense to use that
than engage with slings and arrows that have none.

I know. I try not to get sucked into ad hominem ****ing contests but
I don't always succeed. Larry correctly chides me for feeding the
trolls.

"Assault" rifle is just an emotional hot button
word. I'm surprised you stooped to using it.

Mea culpa. I've partially addressed this in another post.

Try to see this from the viewpoint of gentle civilians and voters who
may be less familiar with weaponry than you are. The AR-15 does not
look like something one might use for hunting squirrels or deer or
varmints. It might conceivably be used thusly but there are other
better choices. It doesn't look like a target rifle either. It
looks like a weapon intended for combat because that's what it is.

I don't presently own or lust for an AR-15 but I would like to
preserve my right to have one if I should ever want one. I do own and
enjoy a few rifles but no semi-autos other than a Browning SA-22. That
little rifle was designed by John Moses Browning. It's the rifle he
holds in the photo on the Wikipedia page for JMB.

Ed Huntress wrote:

Of course not. The whole point was the *situation* in which those characters
were carrying. It was the proximity to the president, and the environment of
a group of political demonstrators, that got them the attention they so
eagerly sought. And they got it, as they know perfectly well, because they
created an ambiguous "message" that implied a threat. That's why the media
were there. And getting attention was their whole point. If there hadn't
been the ambiguity of the "message," including the possibility of a threat,
no one would have paid attention.


And whether any of you bozos realize it or not
he did those of us who own gun NO favors at all.


THIS is not the kind of publicity we want on public TV.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:40:08 -0600, the infamous Steve Ackman
scrawled the following to
the non-mayorial Huntress:

Went to Canyon de Chelly today. Didn't see a single
person out of the dozen or so tourists carrying. ;-)

That's one nice walk, isn't it? Did you hike up to the ceremonial
area and go inside the kiva? Powerful! Lew and his lovely wife were
kind enough to put me up for the night when I was out exploring new
places to live, but Albu was way to BIG/cold/hot/windy/dusty for me.
I had no idea it had a million people in it.

There were likely no carriers out there, but ya woon't have seen 'em
if they carried concealed anyway. (or was that the reason for your
smiley?


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.

Hope his politics were different than yours.

g

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.

So, other people of like mind were NOT intimidated
by your open carry. Therefore carrying a loaded
weapon in and of itself is not intimidating.

Careful, you'll start to make sense to poor Ed.


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.

If you say it's unsettling TO YOU, I'll have to
grant you that. To omit the caveat is to assume you
know how everyone else is feeling.

Excellent point.


You carry a gun with the intention, or the possibility, that you're going to
shoot it.

If it's a political statement, there is no such intent.
Possibility... well, that's sort of a circular argument
isn't it. There's obviously no possibility of shooting
a gun not in your possession.

Isn't "intent" more like when he has it in his hands and the muzzle is
tracking targets? Slung on his back, muzzle at the ground, seems
mighty peaceable. I wonder how he feels about loaded backpacks and
their "intent". (What say, Ed?)

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand." What was Gunner's quote
regarding public outcry? "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the
cartridge box." This guy was a visual cue, a precursor, for that
statement's logical outcome...since they haven't taken the first two
cues to heed. shrug



It wasn't a fashion accessory.

Unless it was. You don't know. Maybe he looked
at his camo AR, his pink AR and his purple AR and
decided against all of them in favor of his black
one, based on what he was going to wear.

Nah, he couldn't have thought that, as the pink one was an AK.


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?

I never know what anyone is going to do in any
situation. I could go to the post office and a cop who
used to work there could go postal.

Ed must have been on the Brady site earlier. I'm sure he normally
would have said "armed civilian", not "OH MY GOD, A MAN WITH A GUN!"


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?

(That might make the President consider who he serves more frequently,
might it not, Ed? Heavens, we wouldn't want _that_!)


Since when was it in our power to allow such a
thing? "We" have absolutely ZERO input into whether
people are allowed to carry in the White House or not.
Your questions are getting more and more ridiculous.

I mean, they'd just be exercising their right, correct?

Yes.

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.

That would be brandishing, not to mention assault.
You're just getting more and more ridiculous.

Yeah, that nails it. He's gone over the the Dark and Brady side of
the Force. tsk, tsk, tsk


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.

So you're saying that since Liberals have been known
to bite strangers' fingers off, you think "we" should
prevent all liberals from attending health rallies. Or
just liberals with teeth? Or just disarm them before
they're allowed to attend? I don't quite see where you
draw the line.

Jody Miller is in fine form here. Since I don't watch TV, I had to
googlit when you mentioned the finger. This was one of the hits.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate-ombud/2009/09/03/obamacare-supporter-bites-finger-elderly-man


So, here are the bald facts that only a moron or a juvenile fool would deny.

Hmmm... very ad hominem flavor. As I wrote to Don
a bit earlier, only the weakest arguments are bolstered
with ad hominem. I can see you are already becoming
less and less convinced with what you write.

Hmm, wasn't he just railing on me for that? Interesting!


These "tools," such as the AR15, or William Kostric's 9mm S&W, are designed
to kill people, period.

Those particular models... probably so, or at least
they're derived from designs designed to kill people.

Guns were designed for war and hunting game. Machine guns and AR-type
models have enhanced designs for soldiers for killing the enemy.
AR-type models are also primarily collected for DEFENSIVE use. (If
several people attack you at your house, would you rather have
Grandpa's old bolt-action single-shot .22 or a nice .223 AR-15 to
defend yourself, your family, and your property?)


I'm not entirely sure (and neither are you) that
firearms at the start weren't designed to kill game.

Has anyone else here used a tool designed for one thing to accomplish
another task it wasn't designed for, or is that just a wild thought?
Nobody has a bent or broken knife or screwdriver, at least? Besides,
Kostric wasn't -using- his tool. He was displaying it in hands-off
fashion as a visual cue.


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

(Why this protracted hard-on for Gunner lately, Ed?)


Whatever "statement" they're making hinges on the fact that these "tools"
are for killing people. Period.

(Well, paper targets, bottles, and cans can all have a collective sigh
of relief from now on, Ed. Thank you for that.)


We have an unfortunate set of memories about guns in
those circumstances. If we have anything like normal emotions,

(Yeah, those circumstances were tough on Presidents Lincoln and
Kennedy, but they also bred things like Mr. Brady and her campaign to
eradicate guns from the face of the Earth.)

Now would someone please intervene in New Jersey? Ed's gone over!

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

snip

Isn't "intent" more like when he has it in his hands and the muzzle is
tracking targets? Slung on his back, muzzle at the ground, seems
mighty peaceable. I wonder how he feels about loaded backpacks and
their "intent". (What say, Ed?)

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand." What was Gunner's quote
regarding public outcry? "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the
cartridge box." This guy was a visual cue, a precursor, for that
statement's logical outcome...since they haven't taken the first two
cues to heed. shrug

"What say?" I'd say you just proved my point.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:31:58 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:47:28 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:



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.

I think I already asked this, but what better venue
to make a political statement than a political rally?

Good point. My point is simply that this form of political statement
may have effect opposite from that intended. The incident certainly
has been noticed in places far removed from Arizona where such
behavior may indeed be unremarkable. But then, it's only a statement
if it's remarkable, right?

Don, the politicians have been doing whatever the f*ck they feel like
for decades now and the people are finally starting to stand up for
themselves and voice their anger. The act of carrying arms to a
political rally was one of the little cues they're using to alert the
politicians to this. Do you really think their statement went
unnoticed, or was misconstrued?

I remembered "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the cartridge
box" but just found this. The open letter is _great_! Gotta read
deeper. http://fiveboxes.com . The site says "There are five boxes
to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the
Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in
that order."

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:31:58 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:47:28 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:



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.

I think I already asked this, but what better venue
to make a political statement than a political rally?

Good point. My point is simply that this form of political statement
may have effect opposite from that intended. The incident certainly
has been noticed in places far removed from Arizona where such
behavior may indeed be unremarkable. But then, it's only a statement
if it's remarkable, right?

Don, the politicians have been doing whatever the f*ck they feel like
for decades now and the people are finally starting to stand up for
themselves and voice their anger. The act of carrying arms to a
political rally was one of the little cues they're using to alert the
politicians to this. Do you really think their statement went
unnoticed, or was misconstrued?

No, I don't think it was unnoticed, nor that it was misconstrued. Despite
all of the blatant sophistry and loony-tune logic that we're hearing to
defend the gun-toters, it's clear, as you say, that the idea is to
intimidate and threaten.

The threat isn't imminent; they probably know they'd be dead before they hit
the ground if they tried to exercise it. But it's clearly implied. You, for
example, seem to get it perfectly well.


I remembered "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the cartridge
box" but just found this. The open letter is _great_! Gotta read
deeper. http://fiveboxes.com . The site says "There are five boxes
to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the
Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in
that order."

....which demonstrates my point.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:04:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Isn't "intent" more like when he has it in his hands and the muzzle is
tracking targets? Slung on his back, muzzle at the ground, seems
mighty peaceable. I wonder how he feels about loaded backpacks and
their "intent". (What say, Ed?)

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand." What was Gunner's quote
regarding public outcry? "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the
cartridge box." This guy was a visual cue, a precursor, for that
statement's logical outcome...since they haven't taken the first two
cues to heed. shrug

"What say?" I'd say you just proved my point.

I'd say it was more of a caveat than a threat. Like the teacher
showing the students the paddle versus actually grabbing the errant
****ant, bending them over the knees, and paddling up some nice
blisters. If you and the pols didn't like this cue, what will you say
when the actual paddling starts? You and I know they aren't going to
listen to reason, right? And by "they" I mean "the pols".

Get thee away from me, "Brady"!

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:04:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..

snip

Isn't "intent" more like when he has it in his hands and the muzzle is
tracking targets? Slung on his back, muzzle at the ground, seems
mighty peaceable. I wonder how he feels about loaded backpacks and
their "intent". (What say, Ed?)

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand." What was Gunner's quote
regarding public outcry? "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the
cartridge box." This guy was a visual cue, a precursor, for that
statement's logical outcome...since they haven't taken the first two
cues to heed. shrug

"What say?" I'd say you just proved my point.

I'd say it was more of a caveat than a threat.

When you're trying to get a call that far off the plate, you know you're
wading in sophistic bull****, Larry. The next step for you is to drink the
Hoppe's. d8-)

Like the teacher
showing the students the paddle versus actually grabbing the errant
****ant, bending them over the knees, and paddling up some nice
blisters. If you and the pols didn't like this cue, what will you say
when the actual paddling starts?

The "actual paddling," which Steve and many others deny, is the consequence
of that unambiguous cue. It's interesting that you, among all of the
sophists and gun-nut casuists, really get the point. It's even more
interesting that you think it makes perfect sense.

In other words, you believe they ARE threatening the President, and others,
but that the threat of reverting to the "cartridge box" is OK until someone
actually shoots.

I really hope the Secret Service shoots first.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:31:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:47:28 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:



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.

I think I already asked this, but what better venue
to make a political statement than a political rally?

Good point. My point is simply that this form of political statement
may have effect opposite from that intended. The incident certainly
has been noticed in places far removed from Arizona where such
behavior may indeed be unremarkable. But then, it's only a statement
if it's remarkable, right?

Have any of you contemplated whether your premise is flawed? So far
everyone is assuming the gent with the AR is a pro gun guy... is he
really? Doesn't seem beyond the realm of politics in this age to have
an anti-gunner behind something like this. After all, wouldn't they
get the most bang for the buck out of that stunt?

Maybe Huntress can get out his crystal ball and take a peek. I now
return you to your regularly scheduled hand wringing and ad hom's.

Boo

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:31:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:47:28 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:



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.

I think I already asked this, but what better venue
to make a political statement than a political rally?

Good point. My point is simply that this form of political statement
may have effect opposite from that intended. The incident certainly
has been noticed in places far removed from Arizona where such
behavior may indeed be unremarkable. But then, it's only a statement
if it's remarkable, right?

Have any of you contemplated whether your premise is flawed? So far
everyone is assuming the gent with the AR is a pro gun guy... is he
really? Doesn't seem beyond the realm of politics in this age to have
an anti-gunner behind something like this. After all, wouldn't they
get the most bang for the buck out of that stunt?

You realize, of course, if any of them agree with you, they're shooting
their entire argument in the foot. They've been saying it isn't a "stunt" at
all, but rather a legitimate demonstration.

So you'll only get a positive answer if they talk first and think later.
That's not an impossibility. d8-)


Maybe Huntress can get out his crystal ball and take a peek. I now
return you to your regularly scheduled hand wringing and ad hom's.

I see deteriorating brain cells out there from sniffing too much Red Dot
smoke. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:27:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:31:58 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:47:28 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:



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.

I think I already asked this, but what better venue
to make a political statement than a political rally?

Good point. My point is simply that this form of political statement
may have effect opposite from that intended. The incident certainly
has been noticed in places far removed from Arizona where such
behavior may indeed be unremarkable. But then, it's only a statement
if it's remarkable, right?

Don, the politicians have been doing whatever the f*ck they feel like
for decades now and the people are finally starting to stand up for
themselves and voice their anger. The act of carrying arms to a
political rally was one of the little cues they're using to alert the
politicians to this. Do you really think their statement went
unnoticed, or was misconstrued?

By someone, sure! There are several different interpretations of what
the statement was right here in this thread. What do *you* think the
statement was? You hint at it and dance around it but don't really
make a simple declarative statement. Was it that if the politicians
don't do what angry citizens want them to do then the citizens will
shoot them? If not that, than pls explain the reference to the
cartridge box.


I remembered "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the cartridge
box" but just found this. The open letter is _great_! Gotta read
deeper. http://fiveboxes.com . The site says "There are five boxes
to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the
Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in
that order."

How exactly does one use ammunition in the defense of liberty, aside
from combat with armed attackers/invaders? Who gets shot and what
about their liberty?

When armed citizens start to hint, either by action or statement, that
they would turn their arms against elected government, then more
peaceful citizens may well decided that the "well-regulated militia"
is not regulated nearly well enough. Obama and the gungrabbers would
love a bunch of that!

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:19:46 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:31:58 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:47:28 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:



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.

I think I already asked this, but what better venue
to make a political statement than a political rally?

Good point. My point is simply that this form of political statement
may have effect opposite from that intended. The incident certainly
has been noticed in places far removed from Arizona where such
behavior may indeed be unremarkable. But then, it's only a statement
if it's remarkable, right?

Have any of you contemplated whether your premise is flawed? So far
everyone is assuming the gent with the AR is a pro gun guy... is he
really? Doesn't seem beyond the realm of politics in this age to have
an anti-gunner behind something like this. After all, wouldn't they
get the most bang for the buck out of that stunt?

That did occur to me and I think I even mentioned the possibility.

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
06:50:02 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

snip

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand."

That probably is the way most people would interpret
it. Apparently in Ed's world, such a message falls
outside the 1st Amendment.

Actually, making a threat to shoot people, which is exactly what Larry and
you are proposing, is against the law everywhere. That isn't First Amendment
problems you're facing, it's jail time.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:07:14 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 3, 4:03*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:34:15 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:27*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:28:41 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

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?

Maybe his message was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
*State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
*infringed."

Just for clarity:
"Militia: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law
for *military service; "their troops were untrained militia";
"Congress shall *have power to provide for calling forth the
militia" * --United States Constitution.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Hey Richard - can you now please provide a definition of "well
regulated?"

Sure - well-trained. And, if the government storm troopers (which they
call the "militia" even though they're not) get out of line, then the
citizens will have the power to regulate their asses off.

Can you try that again, in English? With what militia did the AR-15 guy
train?

Probably on his own property. What exactly is it you mean by "with what
milltia?" There's only one - every able-bodied adult citizen of the
country.

When is the last time he drilled with them?

This is a strawman, and irrelevant.

What is his rank?

The highest "rank" of all - civilian.

To whom does he report?

God? To whom would you have him "report"?

Thanks,
Rich

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 4 Sep 2009 16:34:25 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
06:50:02 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

snip

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand."

That probably is the way most people would interpret
it. Apparently in Ed's world, such a message falls
outside the 1st Amendment.

Actually, making a threat to shoot people, which is exactly what Larry
and
you are proposing, is against the law everywhere. That isn't First
Amendment
problems you're facing, it's jail time.

A rifle slung on your back, muzzle down, is not
threatening to shoot anybody... no matter how many
times you say it is. I might add, Period!

Of course not. We're talking about the discussion that you and Larry are
making here.

The threat you and Larry are making is to use the "cartridge box." Larry
wants to carry guns to remind politicians that he'll shoot and kill them if
he doesn't like what they do, and you agree.

Correct?

If not, what are you going to do with your gun to "steer [the politicians]
with a firmer hand"?

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
06:50:02 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

snip

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of
late. Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant,
or we'll have to steer you with a firmer hand."

That probably is the way most people would interpret
it. Apparently in Ed's world, such a message falls
outside the 1st Amendment.

Actually, making a threat to shoot people, which is exactly what
Larry and you are proposing, is against the law everywhere. That
isn't First Amendment problems you're facing, it's jail time.

There is another possibility Ed and the consequences lie in America's own
history.
The last time these white trash cracker asses took up arms against their
government they ended up utterly decimated, eating whatever roots and
berries Bill Sherman had overlooked. Some areas still haven't recovered and
that was in the face of a doubling of the Union's economy during the war.

The 90 percent of gun owners and 99 percent of the population, gun owners
included, that find the behavior under discussion here foolish and
irresponsible are more than able to visit the modern day version on them
again. The difference today is that these goobers represent such a small
minority that they won't tax the prison Bush built for them at Gitmo if they
make it that far and nobody will care much if they don't. They certainly are
no match for modern law enforcement, or since the passage of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006, America's armed forces. Posse Comitatus died with
that act and with it, any hope that an armed uprising would be met with
insufficient force.

The black guy toting his portable penis openly wasn't the person that
introduced me to this issue. The first news reports were some time earlier
and the guy involved was packing a sign along with his side arm. You
couldn't mistake HIS message if you wanted to.
He'd like to water the tree of liberty with someones blood.

--
John R. Carroll

On Sep 4, 5:16*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
wrote:
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:07:14 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 3, 4:03*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:34:15 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 2, 6:27*pm, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 23:28:41 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

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?

Maybe his message was:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
*State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
*infringed."

Just for clarity:
"Militia: the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law
for *military service; "their troops were untrained militia";
"Congress shall *have power to provide for calling forth the
militia" * --United States Constitution.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Hey Richard - can you now please provide a definition of "well
regulated?"

Sure - well-trained. And, if the government storm troopers (which they
call the "militia" even though they're not) get out of line, then the
citizens will have the power to regulate their asses off.

Can you try that again, in English? With what militia did the AR-15 guy
train?

Probably on his own property. What exactly is it you mean by "with what
milltia?" There's only one - every able-bodied adult citizen of the
country.

When is the last time he drilled with them?

This is a strawman, and irrelevant.

What is his rank?

The highest "rank" of all - civilian.

To whom does he report?

God? To whom would you have him "report"?

Thanks,
Rich

If that's the best you can come up with for an explanation of his
participation in a "well regulated militia," you're a bigger ass than
I gave you credit for.

Sheesh.

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
00:33:32 -0500, Don Foreman, wrote:

snip


I personally wouldn't interpret it as defiance
unless it was something approaching civil disobediance.
In this case, the guy broke no laws, breached no
etiquette, and only in separate statements, came across
as a bit less than "enlightened."

I think the biggest difference between the way the
"message" played in AZ as opposed to elsewhere was the
emotional response.

Wondering if Arizonians had slipped a cog, I called an old friend of mine
today, Tony Mandile, former Editor of _Arizona Hunter_, a big 2nd Amendment
supporter, hunting guide and writing contributor to NSSF, to ask him about
Christopher Broughton (the AZ gun-toter). "You mean the nut?" was his
reaction. g

I'm relieved to see that the whole state hasn't gone mad.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:11:44 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 10:04:15 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...

snip

Isn't "intent" more like when he has it in his hands and the muzzle is
tracking targets? Slung on his back, muzzle at the ground, seems
mighty peaceable. I wonder how he feels about loaded backpacks and
their "intent". (What say, Ed?)

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand." What was Gunner's quote
regarding public outcry? "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the
cartridge box." This guy was a visual cue, a precursor, for that
statement's logical outcome...since they haven't taken the first two
cues to heed. shrug

"What say?" I'd say you just proved my point.

I'd say it was more of a caveat than a threat.

When you're trying to get a call that far off the plate, you know you're
wading in sophistic bull****, Larry. The next step for you is to drink the
Hoppe's. d8-)

Hey, between the two of us, _I'm_ not the paranoid one drinking Brady
koolaid.


Like the teacher
showing the students the paddle versus actually grabbing the errant
****ant, bending them over the knees, and paddling up some nice
blisters. If you and the pols didn't like this cue, what will you say
when the actual paddling starts?

The "actual paddling," which Steve and many others deny, is the consequence
of that unambiguous cue. It's interesting that you, among all of the
sophists and gun-nut casuists, really get the point. It's even more
interesting that you think it makes perfect sense.

I didn't say I'd do it, and I didn't say I agreed with it entirely,
and I didn't say it didn't cause other problems, but I am glad it was
done. Until the perps in D.C. get the idea that the people won't stand
for much more of this ****, that kind of thing will happen more
often...until something breaks. Another Kent State-like incident will
kick off the impending revolution pretty easily, don't you think?

BTW, you, among all, have historically underestimated my intelligence,
while I have overestimated yours.


In other words, you believe they ARE threatening the President, and others,
but that the threat of reverting to the "cartridge box" is OK until someone
actually shoots.

I feel that it's as valid a threat as someone yelling "I'm gonna kill
you!" when they see their wife/hubby in bed with another person. It's
over about 3 minutes of fisticuffs later and nobody is shot. But the
CONgresscritters are like that same adulterer coming back every day
after the incident. One of these days, somebody's gonna get hurt.


I really hope the Secret Service shoots first.

I don't think it'll be the Prez who is shot first when the fit hits
the shan. That'd kick off a race riot.

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

On Sep 4, 11:18*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
[..]

I don't think it'll be the Prez who is shot first when the fit hits
the shan. *That'd kick off a race riot.

[..]

You make the assumption that the (future) shooter will give a damn
about that. Or, do you have some inside information :-?

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 14:08:55 -0600, the infamous Steve Ackman
scrawled the following:

In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
06:50:02 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:40:08 -0600, the infamous Steve Ackman
scrawled the following to
the non-mayorial Huntress:

Went to Canyon de Chelly today. Didn't see a single
person out of the dozen or so tourists carrying. ;-)

That's one nice walk, isn't it?

Dunno. My wife decided it was too hot for a two hour
walk, so we drove up the North Rim and did the overlooks.

Do it in the morning or later this fall, in cooler weather. It's a
wonderful experience.


Did you hike up to the ceremonial area and go inside the kiva?
Powerful!

We'll get back there for that once it gets a little
cooler.

Bueno.


Lew and his lovely wife were
kind enough to put me up for the night when I was out exploring new
places to live, but Albu was way to BIG/cold/hot/windy/dusty for me.
I had no idea it had a million people in it.

Last time I was there (besides just driving through)
was 10 years ago. I can't imagine living there, and
can barely think of a reason I'd stop beyond a refuel.

That's what I found. Lew was the high point of the trip through NM.


There were likely no carriers out there, but ya woon't have seen 'em
if they carried concealed anyway. (or was that the reason for your
smiley?

Italians, Germans, French... Can't imagine most of
them even own any firearms, never mind bringing them
over on a plane.

True.


So, other people of like mind were NOT intimidated
by your open carry. Therefore carrying a loaded
weapon in and of itself is not intimidating.

Careful, you'll start to make sense to poor Ed.

I doubt it.

His latest missive to me makes that clear.


Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand."

That probably is the way most people would interpret
it. Apparently in Ed's world, such a message falls
outside the 1st Amendment.

Brady Ed is high (low?) on koolaid.


Maybe he looked
at his camo AR, his pink AR and his purple AR and
decided against all of them in favor of his black
one, based on what he was going to wear.

Nah, he couldn't have thought that, as the pink one was an AK.

Sorry, my mistake. I guess if he were going to
a Rainbow Coalition gathering, a pink AK might have
been more appropriate.

Yeah, or a sleepover. Kalishnikitty Forever!


Ed must have been on the Brady site earlier. I'm sure he normally
would have said "armed civilian", not "OH MY GOD, A MAN WITH A GUN!"

Correction: "OH MY GOD, AN UNKNOWN MAN WITH A LOADED GUN!"

"Unknown" makes the man completely unpredictable,
and "loaded" makes the gun completely terrifying.

Yeah, they'd say that, wouldn't they?


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.

That would be brandishing, not to mention assault.
You're just getting more and more ridiculous.

Yeah, that nails it. He's gone over the the Dark and Brady side of
the Force. tsk, tsk, tsk

Ed has indicated that "gun-toters" are all criminals
at heart, because the only valid reasons for carrying
are hunting and self-defense, and if you're not doing
either of those, you're just oozing criminal intent.

Surprising, isn't it? Of course, he claims to be a Republican, too.
And he calls -others- sophists and casuists?


So you're saying that since Liberals have been known
to bite strangers' fingers off, you think "we" should
prevent all liberals from attending health rallies. Or
just liberals with teeth? Or just disarm them before
they're allowed to attend? I don't quite see where you
draw the line.

Jody Miller is in fine form here. Since I don't watch TV, I had to
googlit when you mentioned the finger. This was one of the hits.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mithridate-ombud/2009/09/03/obamacare-supporter-bites-finger-elderly-man

Even after reading that twice, I would never have
known what happened if I hadn't seen it elsewhere.

Maybe I should find the video...


Has anyone else here used a tool designed for one thing to accomplish
another task it wasn't designed for, or is that just a wild thought?
Nobody has a bent or broken knife or screwdriver, at least? Besides,
Kostric wasn't -using- his tool. He was displaying it in hands-off
fashion as a visual cue.

I wonder what the Leatherman on my belt says to Ed.
Nah. On second thought, I really don't.

g


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

(Why this protracted hard-on for Gunner lately, Ed?)

His writing in general seems much more ad hominem
lately.

Has TMT cloned his address?


Whatever "statement" they're making hinges on the fact that these "tools"
are for killing people. Period.

(Well, paper targets, bottles, and cans can all have a collective sigh
of relief from now on, Ed. Thank you for that.)

Peegs too. Oh, wait a minute. He drives, doesn't he.
http://wizard.dyndns.org/spruce/0503...vyaseena.s.jpg

g

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 15:06:32 -0600, the infamous Steve Ackman
scrawled the following:

In , on Fri, 4 Sep 2009 16:34:25 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
06:50:02 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

snip

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand."

That probably is the way most people would interpret
it. Apparently in Ed's world, such a message falls
outside the 1st Amendment.

Actually, making a threat to shoot people, which is exactly what Larry and
you are proposing, is against the law everywhere. That isn't First Amendment
problems you're facing, it's jail time.

A rifle slung on your back, muzzle down, is not
threatening to shoot anybody... no matter how many
times you say it is. I might add, Period!

If it were, the guy would have been arrested.

It is illegal to threaten the President. The man was not arrested so
the police and Secret Service apparently both agreed that
_there_was_no_threat_.

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:33:11 -0400, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
. org...
In , on Fri, 4 Sep 2009 16:34:25 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
06:50:02 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

snip

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand."

That probably is the way most people would interpret
it. Apparently in Ed's world, such a message falls
outside the 1st Amendment.

Actually, making a threat to shoot people, which is exactly what Larry
and
you are proposing, is against the law everywhere. That isn't First
Amendment
problems you're facing, it's jail time.

A rifle slung on your back, muzzle down, is not
threatening to shoot anybody... no matter how many
times you say it is. I might add, Period!

Of course not. We're talking about the discussion that you and Larry are
making here.

The threat you and Larry are making is to use the "cartridge box." Larry
wants to carry guns to remind politicians that he'll shoot and kill them if
he doesn't like what they do, and you agree.

Correct?

You're so full of ****, Ed. Mrs. Brady deserves you.

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:25:14 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:27:47 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:31:58 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 20:47:28 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:



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.

I think I already asked this, but what better venue
to make a political statement than a political rally?

Good point. My point is simply that this form of political statement
may have effect opposite from that intended. The incident certainly
has been noticed in places far removed from Arizona where such
behavior may indeed be unremarkable. But then, it's only a statement
if it's remarkable, right?

Don, the politicians have been doing whatever the f*ck they feel like
for decades now and the people are finally starting to stand up for
themselves and voice their anger. The act of carrying arms to a
political rally was one of the little cues they're using to alert the
politicians to this. Do you really think their statement went
unnoticed, or was misconstrued?

By someone, sure! There are several different interpretations of what
the statement was right here in this thread. What do *you* think the
statement was? You hint at it and dance around it but don't really
make a simple declarative statement.

I said what I think. Our elected officials are doing things which are
angering the public and I don't think the public will tolerate it for
much longer. I think there may be a revolution brewing.


Was it that if the politicians
don't do what angry citizens want them to do then the citizens will
shoot them?

You sure phrased that neutrally, Don. g


If not that, than pls explain the reference to the
cartridge box.

I did. I repeated the phrase used by another RCMer, attributing it to
him earlier.


I remembered "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the cartridge
box" but just found this. The open letter is _great_! Gotta read
deeper. http://fiveboxes.com . The site says "There are five boxes
to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the
Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in
that order."

How exactly does one use ammunition in the defense of liberty, aside
from combat with armed attackers/invaders? Who gets shot and what
about their liberty?

Is everything the current administration wants to do OK by you, Don?
BTW, did you read the letter? It's good. I agree with much of it.


When armed citizens start to hint, either by action or statement, that
they would turn their arms against elected government, then more
peaceful citizens may well decided that the "well-regulated militia"
is not regulated nearly well enough.

They don't want that, do they?


Obama and the gungrabbers would love a bunch of that!

If O and crew successfully put down some kind of coup, yeah, they
probably would.

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 19:00:20 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:

In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
00:33:32 -0500, Don Foreman, wrote:
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.

I don't need to spend time in AZ to take your word for that. I admit
to finding it a bit surprising. Open carry is legal in most of MN but
nobody does it in towns or urban settings.

The actions and "statement" of the guy in AZ were noted in places far
removed from AZ, thanks to the media. I don't question, challenge or
deny that his act was within his rights, that is NOT MY POINT. I
maintain that his act was ill-considered and foolish as regards the
preservation of his rights and mine. That's the part that bothers
me.

It should maybe bother you more that his actions
should have any repercussions on your rights at all.

Is there perhaps a typo here? I'm not sure what you're saying. His
actions wouldn't bother me a bit if they have no repercussions on my
rights. He can have an AR-15 slung on each shoulder and a 1911
duct-taped to his forehead for all I care -- unless that affects
public opinion beyond AZ in a way that might eventually impugn my
rights.

His act is only a viable statement if it's remarkable. If his conduct
is unremarkable in AZ, as you assert, then it was a faint statement
there.

Had I been there, I wouldn't have given him a
second thought.

Then I needn't worry about your being persuaded to vote for stiffer
controls. That still leaves a few other voters and pols in question...

The 2d amendment is not an inalienable or God-given right.

The 2nd amendment spells out your inalienable/
God-given right.

If that right was God-given and inalienable there would be no need for
the 2d amendment. It would be redundant and we wouldn't be having this
conversation.

A right is something you're born with. A privilege
is something given. A right cannot be taken away
(legally), but it can be waived.

Sorry, that's wrong. Some constitutional rights are denied to felons
but nevermind that since neither of us are felons yet. Well, I'm not
anyway. Citizens have constitutional rights and citizenship is
conferred by birth (or by naturalization). A right that is
conferred by the constitution or an amendment thereto, the 2d in this
case, can be modified or abolished by a subsequent amendment. For
example, the 21st amendment repealed and reversed the 18th. The people
voted and made it so.

Maybe the problem is too many people believe the
right to keep and bear arms is actually a privilege.

It is a right conferred by the 2d amendment to the constitution. That
amendment can be modifed, nullified or repealed by a subsequent
amendment.

If the people of our country were to become sufficiently offended by
damned fools offensively abusing their 2d amendment rights, those rights
could be curtailed or eliminated.

Not lawfully... though as Hitler amply demonstrated,
anything can be done legally. All it takes is to pass
a law to legalize it. (Does that invoke Godwin?)

It definitely invokes Godwin.

One media-darling-for-a-day damned fool isn't an epidemic. I'm not
worried, but I'm still bothered a bit by one who must display his
weapon in public, in crowds, at a political rally, to "make a
statement". I interpret that "statement" as "lookitme, I'm
significant because I have a gun and the right to carry it whether you
like it or not!" That interpretation of defiance is supported by his
reported death wish for the president.

You may interpret his "statement" differently in Arizona.

I personally wouldn't interpret it as defiance
unless it was something approaching civil disobediance.

Just a manner of dress so to speak? Some guys have body piercings,
others tattoos, a few adorn themselves with AR-15's? "Oh, Guy, that
rifle is so YOU!" I think you're right, I gotta come visit Arizona.
I might like it.

In this case, the guy broke no laws, breached no
etiquette, and only in separate statements, came across
as a bit less than "enlightened."

I agree that he broke no laws and I'll accept your assessment that he
breached no Arizona etiquette. But the media put it on a national
stage. As you have seen, the reaction is not the same everywhere as
your reaction in AZ.

I think the biggest difference between the way the
"message" played in AZ as opposed to elsewhere was the
emotional response.

Yes indeed. The event/act may well have been yawnably unremarkable in
Arizona to Arizonians.

Unfortunately, thanks to the media's 1st-amendment-protected
irresponsible appetite for sensationalism, his audience extended far
beyond AZ to some places where opinions were apparently quite
different.

So why should anybody in AZ cares what various dainty urbanites in NJ
or MN might think? Well, said DU's are also U.S. citizens who can
propose amendments and vote for them, and there are a whole lot of
urbanites in the US outside of AZ. The time and notion of people
minding their own damned business seems to be long gone in this
internet age.

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:06:28 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

By someone, sure! There are several different interpretations of what
the statement was right here in this thread. What do *you* think the
statement was? You hint at it and dance around it but don't really
make a simple declarative statement.

I said what I think. Our elected officials are doing things which are
angering the public and I don't think the public will tolerate it for
much longer. I think there may be a revolution brewing.

Armed revolution? Wow. Not saying you and Gunner are wrong but
yikes. No wonder I can't get primers.

Was it that if the politicians
don't do what angry citizens want them to do then the citizens will
shoot them?

You sure phrased that neutrally, Don. g

Intentionally so, Larry. Innuendo is for adolescent girls, not men
with guns.

If not that, than pls explain the reference to the
cartridge box.

I did. I repeated the phrase used by another RCMer, attributing it to
him earlier.

That doesn't explain your intent in repeating it. Did you merely
parrot it because you thought it was clever? If not, what meaning do
you intend to convey by repeating it? It appears to me that cartridge
box infers that somebody gets threatened or shot but I'm open to
clarification. Whom would you threaten or shoot and how would you
decide when to shoot them if they ignore your threat?

I remembered "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the cartridge
box" but just found this. The open letter is _great_! Gotta read
deeper. http://fiveboxes.com . The site says "There are five boxes
to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the
Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in
that order."

How exactly does one use ammunition in the defense of liberty, aside
from combat with armed attackers/invaders? Who gets shot and what
about their liberty?

Is everything the current administration wants to do OK by you, Don?

No, and that response dodges my questons. Almost nothing the current
administration wants to do is OK by me, Larry. The arrogant
narcissistic weasel-wording SOB in office scares the hell out of me.
So are you gonna shoot him anytime soon?

When armed citizens start to hint, either by action or statement, that
they would turn their arms against elected government, then more
peaceful citizens may well decided that the "well-regulated militia"
is not regulated nearly well enough.

They don't want that, do they?

I sure hope not.

Let's not mince words or employ innuendo about shooting people, OK? It
isn't an imaginary or abstract concept when real guns are involved.

If there be armed revolution or revolt brewing, note that the rebels
would endeavor to overthrow a government that a majority of Americans
voted into office in a free election. Why would you assume that
leaders of such a coup, assuming it would succeed which I think is
extremely unlikely, would be benign or benevolent toward your
interests? Because it's change?

What about you, Larry, will you be a soldier for the revolution? Are
you up for armed combat and do you have the skills to have any hope of
surviving it or care if you survive it? When you shoot at people they
will shoot back, eventually with considerably more firepower than you
and friends have available to bring to the fracas.

Obama and the gungrabbers would love a bunch of that!

If O and crew successfully put down some kind of coup, yeah, they
probably would.

"O and the crew" has considerable military might and resources at
their disposal.

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:33:11 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 4 Sep 2009
16:34:25 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
06:50:02 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

snip

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of
late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand."

That probably is the way most people would interpret
it. Apparently in Ed's world, such a message falls
outside the 1st Amendment.

Actually, making a threat to shoot people, which is exactly what Larry
and
you are proposing, is against the law everywhere. That isn't First
Amendment
problems you're facing, it's jail time.

A rifle slung on your back, muzzle down, is not
threatening to shoot anybody... no matter how many
times you say it is. I might add, Period!

Of course not. We're talking about the discussion that you and Larry are
making here.

The threat you and Larry are making is to use the "cartridge box."

I never made such a threat. I merely acknowledged
his assessment of how an AR at a political rally might
be interpreted by some people.

Good dodge! And a wise move.

You did seem to be approving of that interpretation, however. Are you now
distancing yourself from it? Or did you never approve of it at all?

And if you don't approve of it, then that still leaves the question of what
the gun is all about in this "demonstration." Are you warning the
politicians with it? Larry sure is, based on his own words. Do you approve
or disapprove of his threat?


Larry wants to carry guns to remind politicians that he'll shoot and
kill them if he doesn't like what they do, and you agree.

Correct?

I look above, and can't find that anywhere.

Sure you can. Look again. First he says it's a "veiled threat." A veiled
threat means a real threat, in disguise.

Then he says that the purpose of this "demonstration" is to send a message
to politicians that, if they don't do what he wants, he's going to use a
"firmer hand." There must be something about the gun that enables his
"firmer hand," or there would be no relationship in all of this to the gun;
the gun would provide no "message" that relates to his statement. And guns
provide the force for a "firmer hand" when they're fired, or when you
threaten someone with firing the gun at them.

So Larry's message to politicians, with the veil removed and with the
euphemisms stripped out, is "do what I want or I'm going to shoot you."
There's no other sensible interpretation of that gun-speak, is there?

That's the "veil" he's talking about -- the disguise. It's a thinly
disguised expression that he's threatening to kill politicians if they don't
comply with his wishes.

To make such a statement in general is evidence that he's a loose cannon, if
you'll excuse the pun. To make such a statement and to direct it at an
individual -- say, to the President -- is a crime. I'm sure you recognize
this and, again, good for you for picking up on that and dodging the
specifics, attributing it to "some people," rather than to yourself, when
you realized what was being said. That was wise. I don't think that Larry
realizes it even now.

What I do say is that such speech is protected by the
1st Amendment... which as I'm sure you're aware was
written surrounded by discussion of political speech
in particular.

Yeah, I'm aware of the origins of the First Amendment, and I'm aware that,
as they say, your right to swing your fist ends at my face. Your free-speech
rights hit the wall at the point where you're making physical threats to
individuals, which is the thin ice Larry is skating on. This discussion
includes a lot of "veiled threats" combined with a lot of discussion about
Obama. As you undoubtedly sense, it's risky to assume the collected things
you and Larry have said here cannot be used to draw a direct connection
between the two. Attributing the statements to "some people" probably will
do the job. Of course, that's unless there's also a direct connection
between the things you've said here and the things you attribute to "some
people." For example, you wouldn't want to say that you agree with the "some
people." You haven't, have you?


If not, what are you going to do with your gun to "steer [the
politicians]
with a firmer hand"?

I didn't write that, nor did I explicitly agree with
it. I merely pointed out that in your ideal world,
such would not protected by the 1st Amendment.

That's a syntactically awkward sentence, but are you saying that *I'm*
saying that physical threats are not protected by the First Amendment? If
that's what you're saying, then you're correct, in cases where the threat is
directed at an individual or a specific group of individuals. "Politicians"
isn't specific enough to be a potential problem. "Congress," or "Obama," is.


Lucky for the rest of the country, we still have a
1st Amendment that allows people to criticize specific
pieces of legislation, politicians, and even their
governments in general; yes, even to the point of
reiterating the Declaration of Independence.
We still do have that right... even if you wish we
didn't.

I'm very glad we have those rights. But where in the Declaration of
Independence does it say we have a right to shoot our politicians? My copy
doesn't say anything like that. What my copy says, to boil it down, is that
the King has "waged war on the people of the American Colonies, and
therefore he and his government can go **** up a rope. Get lost."

Jefferson was far more eloquent but a bit wordy. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 4 Sep 2009 21:50:50 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:
"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
00:33:32 -0500, Don Foreman, wrote:

snip

I personally wouldn't interpret it as defiance
unless it was something approaching civil disobediance.
In this case, the guy broke no laws, breached no
etiquette, and only in separate statements, came across
as a bit less than "enlightened."

I think the biggest difference between the way the
"message" played in AZ as opposed to elsewhere was the
emotional response.

Wondering if Arizonians had slipped a cog, I called an old friend of mine
today, Tony Mandile, former Editor of _Arizona Hunter_, a big 2nd
Amendment
supporter, hunting guide and writing contributor to NSSF, to ask him
about
Christopher Broughton (the AZ gun-toter). "You mean the nut?" was his
reaction. g

Strange how those who profess to care about the 2nd,
care so little for the 1st. ;-)

I'm relieved to see that the whole state hasn't gone mad.

So you believe I'm an Arizonian?

I have no idea where you are, Steve.

I've never said I
live in AZ, or by any other stretch of the imagination
qualify as an Arizonian, yet somehow you managed to read
what was never written. It's becoming quite apparent
how you reach some of the positions you do. ;-)

What makes you think I was talking about you?

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 01:23:12 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:

Of course not. The whole point was the *situation* in which those characters
were carrying. It was the proximity to the president, and the environment of
a group of political demonstrators, that got them the attention they so
eagerly sought. And they got it, as they know perfectly well, because they
created an ambiguous "message" that implied a threat. That's why the media
were there. And getting attention was their whole point. If there hadn't
been the ambiguity of the "message," including the possibility of a threat,
no one would have paid attention.


And whether any of you bozos realize it or not
he did those of us who own gun NO favors at all.


THIS is not the kind of publicity we want on public TV.


No...thats the sort of publicity we get from LEFTWINGER Anti-gun
fanatics.

They made a big deal about Right Wing Klanners yada yada...and
specifically avoided pointing out that the guy was Black.


So its not a gun issue, but a Leftwing Extremist Media who lies like a
cheap rug issue .




"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

On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:39:26 -0600, Steve Ackman
wrote:


If not, what are you going to do with your gun to "steer [the politicians]
with a firmer hand"?

I didn't write that, nor did I explicitly agree with
it. I merely pointed out that in your ideal world,
such would not protected by the 1st Amendment.


......The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat
and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the
world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them,
the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy
exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of
Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so
honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded
in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years
without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well
informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to
the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under
such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the
public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has
been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half
for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half
without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their
rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them
right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "


Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787






"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

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 13:25:14 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


I remembered "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the cartridge
box" but just found this. The open letter is _great_! Gotta read
deeper. http://fiveboxes.com . The site says "There are five boxes
to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the
Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in
that order."

How exactly does one use ammunition in the defense of liberty, aside
from combat with armed attackers/invaders? Who gets shot and what
about their liberty?

When armed citizens start to hint, either by action or statement, that
they would turn their arms against elected government, then more
peaceful citizens may well decided that the "well-regulated militia"
is not regulated nearly well enough. Obama and the gungrabbers would
love a bunch of that!


......The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat
and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the
world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them,
the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy
exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of
Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so
honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded
in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years
without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well
informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to
the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under
such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the
public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has
been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half
for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half
without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their
rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them
right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "


Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787




"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

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:52:25 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

Let's not mince words or employ innuendo about shooting people, OK? It
isn't an imaginary or abstract concept when real guns are involved.

If there be armed revolution or revolt brewing, note that the rebels
would endeavor to overthrow a government that a majority of Americans
voted into office in a free election. Why would you assume that
leaders of such a coup, assuming it would succeed which I think is
extremely unlikely, would be benign or benevolent toward your
interests? Because it's change?

What about you, Larry, will you be a soldier for the revolution? Are
you up for armed combat and do you have the skills to have any hope of
surviving it or care if you survive it? When you shoot at people they
will shoot back, eventually with considerably more firepower than you
and friends have available to bring to the fracas.


Larry and I have 100,000,000 friends, who have 300,000,000 firearms.

Biggest army in the world.


Against who again?


Gunner


"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

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 00:33:32 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


The actions and "statement" of the guy in AZ were noted in places far
removed from AZ, thanks to the media.


The same media that went to great lengths to like the fellow to white
sepretists, Klanners and racists?

That media?



......The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat
and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the
world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them,
the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy
exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of
Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so
honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded
in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years
without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well
informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to
the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under
such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the
public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has
been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half
for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half
without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their
rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them
right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "


Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787




"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

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 23:19:51 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:


I think the biggest difference between the way the
"message" played in AZ as opposed to elsewhere was the
emotional response.

Yes indeed. The event/act may well have been yawnably unremarkable in
Arizona to Arizonians.

Unfortunately, thanks to the media's 1st-amendment-protected
irresponsible appetite for sensationalism, his audience extended far
beyond AZ to some places where opinions were apparently quite
different.

So why should anybody in AZ cares what various dainty urbanites in NJ
or MN might think? Well, said DU's are also U.S. citizens who can
propose amendments and vote for them, and there are a whole lot of
urbanites in the US outside of AZ. The time and notion of people
minding their own damned business seems to be long gone in this
internet age.


......The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat
and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the
world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them,
the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more
wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy
exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of
Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so
honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded
in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years
without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well
informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to
the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under
such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the
public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has
been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half
for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half
without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their
rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the
spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them
right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "


Thomas Jefferson, November 13, 1787




"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

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Fri, 04 Sep 2009
06:50:02 -0700, Larry Jaques, novalidaddress@di wrote:

snip

Anyway, the only threat was a veiled "We're out here, Mr. & Mrs.
Politician, and we're getting awfully antsy with your actions of late.
Please stay in line and heed our wishes, Mr. Public Servant, or we'll
have to steer you with a firmer hand."
That probably is the way most people would interpret
it. Apparently in Ed's world, such a message falls
outside the 1st Amendment.

Actually, making a threat to shoot people, which is exactly what Larry and
you are proposing, is against the law everywhere. That isn't First Amendment
problems you're facing, it's jail time.

--
Ed Huntress

This is as much a threat to shoot people as the Declaration of
Independents is a threat to shoot Redcoats.

David

Ed Huntress wrote:


I'm very glad we have those rights. But where in the Declaration of
Independence does it say we have a right to shoot our politicians?

That right was recognized later, in the Bill of Rights.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

My copy doesn't say anything like that. What my copy says, to boil
it down, is that the King has "waged war on the people of the
American Colonies, and therefore he and his government can go ****
up a rope. Get lost."

Which led to a lot of Redcoats getting shot. They didn't go away with
words.

Jefferson was far more eloquent but a bit wordy. d8-)

He wasn't trying for sound bites. :^)

I don't think we're there yet, but with the soap box being managed by
those setting up "listening sessions" where we are supposed to listen
to them, but not vice versa, and the ballot box long since
legislatively degraded to a oratory/beauty contest, the last option
will soon be all that's left.

David

On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:52:25 -0500, the infamous Don Foreman
scrawled the following:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:06:28 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

By someone, sure! There are several different interpretations of what
the statement was right here in this thread. What do *you* think the
statement was? You hint at it and dance around it but don't really
make a simple declarative statement.

I said what I think. Our elected officials are doing things which are
angering the public and I don't think the public will tolerate it for
much longer. I think there may be a revolution brewing.

Armed revolution? Wow. Not saying you and Gunner are wrong but
yikes. No wonder I can't get primers.

That's probably only one of the reasons you can't find primers.
Another major drain is the war in the ME. BTW, I _know_ nothing of
any impending revolution, I just sense one coming.


Was it that if the politicians
don't do what angry citizens want them to do then the citizens will
shoot them?

You sure phrased that neutrally, Don. g

Intentionally so, Larry. Innuendo is for adolescent girls, not men
with guns.

If not that, than pls explain the reference to the
cartridge box.

I did. I repeated the phrase used by another RCMer, attributing it to
him earlier.

That doesn't explain your intent in repeating it. Did you merely
parrot it because you thought it was clever? If not, what meaning do
you intend to convey by repeating it? It appears to me that cartridge
box infers that somebody gets threatened or shot but I'm open to
clarification. Whom would you threaten or shoot and how would you
decide when to shoot them if they ignore your threat?

Good question. I'm not going to shoot anyone, but I don't like the
dark clouds on the near horizon. Many other folks aren't as mellow as
I am.


I remembered "From the soapbox, to the ballot box, to the cartridge
box" but just found this. The open letter is _great_! Gotta read
deeper. http://fiveboxes.com . The site says "There are five boxes
to use in the defense of Liberty: The Soap Box, the Mail Box, the
Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Ammunition Box. Please use them in
that order."

How exactly does one use ammunition in the defense of liberty, aside
from combat with armed attackers/invaders? Who gets shot and what
about their liberty?

Is everything the current administration wants to do OK by you, Don?

No, and that response dodges my questons. Almost nothing the current
administration wants to do is OK by me, Larry. The arrogant
narcissistic weasel-wording SOB in office scares the hell out of me.
So are you gonna shoot him anytime soon?

No. Hell, no. I'm just a peaceable, defensively-armed citizen.


When armed citizens start to hint, either by action or statement, that
they would turn their arms against elected government, then more
peaceful citizens may well decided that the "well-regulated militia"
is not regulated nearly well enough.

They don't want that, do they?

I sure hope not.

Let's not mince words or employ innuendo about shooting people, OK? It
isn't an imaginary or abstract concept when real guns are involved.

If there be armed revolution or revolt brewing, note that the rebels
would endeavor to overthrow a government that a majority of Americans
voted into office in a free election.

Those "majority American" guys are not very mellow folks. They bite
fingers off seniors if the seniors don't like Obamacare.


Why would you assume that
leaders of such a coup, assuming it would succeed which I think is
extremely unlikely, would be benign or benevolent toward your
interests? Because it's change?

Why does this sound so much like an interrogation? I've only heard
them on TV, but...


What about you, Larry, will you be a soldier for the revolution? Are
you up for armed combat and do you have the skills to have any hope of
surviving it or care if you survive it? When you shoot at people they
will shoot back, eventually with considerably more firepower than you
and friends have available to bring to the fracas.

Let's hope not, no, maybe, yes, and ouch, respectively. Nobody so far
has been able to flip my "Pacifist/Warrior" switch.


Obama and the gungrabbers would love a bunch of that!

If O and crew successfully put down some kind of coup, yeah, they
probably would.

"O and the crew" has considerable military might and resources at
their disposal.

True...if the considerable military were not part of the revolution.

--
It's a great life...once you weaken.
--author James Hogan

rangerssuck wrote:

Probably on his own property. What exactly is it you mean by "with what
milltia?" There's only one - every able-bodied adult citizen of the
country.

When is the last time he drilled with them?
This is a strawman, and irrelevant.

What is his rank?
The highest "rank" of all - civilian.

To whom does he report?
God? To whom would you have him "report"?

Thanks,
Rich

If that's the best you can come up with for an explanation of his
participation in a "well regulated militia," you're a bigger ass than
I gave you credit for.

Sheesh.

If you're not willing to do the most basic research into the Federal
meaning of words like militia, you probably shouldn't engage in
discussions where you display your intentional ignorance for all to see.

David