DanKroh Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 "These are scary times." Ok, now I am beginning to agree with this statement. When there are two incidents in as many days of protestors bringing guns to town hall meetings on health care reform (one as a concealed weapon, or at least, it was concealed until it fell out of the person's pocket), then I agree we have entered scary times, indeed. The other brazenly displayed his weapon along with a sign about watering the tree of liberty with blood, outside of a venue where the President was due to appear. Can we now agree that it is time to ratchet down the violent, divisive rhetoric in this country, or do we have to wait until an innocent bystander gets shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I agree...if the gun-toters were breaking the law, they should be prosecuted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 scoutldr, they guy in NH who brought the gun to a presidential event was within the law. However, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. What exactly was he hoping to accomplish? He certainly made an impression, especially the gun display coupled with the sign he was carrying, gave off a certain message, one of implied violent intent. So one has to ask, what exactly did bringing that gun add to the debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal_Crawford Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I am sure that it got the guy a thorough top to bottom investigation of every facet of his life by the Secret Service and/or FBI. They really don't like things that sound even remotely like a threat to the POTUS. As it should be, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 So which of the other Constitutional rights should we make "optional" if they don't seem "right" to someone? Speech? Assembly? Religion? Once you open that box, it will be VERY hard to close again. I understand your point, and I don't disagree. He was making a statement, and I hope the SS and FBI did their jobs. But sometimes Liberty makes people uncomfortable. As it should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 "So which of the other Constitutional rights should we make "optional" if they don't seem "right" to someone? Speech? Assembly? Religion? Once you open that box, it will be VERY hard to close again." How about habeas corpus? Oh wait.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Dan, Maybe he just wanted to get noticed, and have a chance at making the local news. He appears to have done both. BTW, he wasn't "outside" the venue where Obama was to speak. He was at a nearby church, with permission to be there. According to the reports I read, he was under constant surveillance. He broke no laws. What's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 I assume you are referring to GTMO. The SCOTUS remedied that in Bumediene v. Bush in 2008, thus granting OUR constitutional rights to those enemy combatants who would rather see us and our children dead and who recognize no law or morality other than Sharia Law. Obama promised to close GTMO, but that's another promise we're waiting to have fulfilled while he tries to run the Auto, Banking and Healthcare industries all at the same time. I am all for a speedy trial. And swift and sure punishment for the guilty. I'm not defending Bush...or any President. I was/am against the Iraq war. It had nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with oil, ego and jingoism on the part of Bush and Rumsfeld. But BOTH parties voted to go with it. I believe the Iraqis should rise up and kill their own dictators. I have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, which gives no power to the Government save that specifically granted by the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Brent, my problem with it (combined with the sign he was carrying) was the not-so-subtle threat of violence. My problem with it is that you don't bring a loaded weapon to an event that you know is going to be contentious, highly charged, with the potential to turn nasty, without the implication that you are willing to use it. Now answer my question, sir: What exactly did bringing that gun add to the debate on health care reform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 scoutldr, I really don't want to get side tracked by a discussion of constitutional rights, or GITMO. I didn't say that what the guy did should be illegal, I said I though it was wrong, and I still do, for the exact same reasons I gave Brent. Because the situation is volatile enough without someone increasing the stakes of someone doing something monumentally stupid. I don't happen to agree with NH's "open carry" law, never have. Which is one of the reasons I don't live in NH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrentAllen Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Dan, I don't think it added anything to the debate - did it have to? Maybe he was just as worried as you about the debate - that it might turn nasty, violent. If so, he was ready to defend himself. So much for tolerance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 "So much for tolerance... " All righty then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GernBlansten Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 This whole debate had devolved to being meaningless. We have the torch bearer of the Republican party and heir apparent to the 2012 nomination flat out lying about Death Panels and gun toting hecklers disrupting town halls. We literally have senior citizens protesting to keep government out of their Medicare. Where can we go from here? Bueller? Bueller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutldr Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Stupid...maybe. There's no law against stupid. But are you advocating the suspension of a Constitutional right as a condition of being allowed your right to petition your Government and to debate your elected official's actions? That's really scary, Dan. Perhaps we should instead examine why these "discussions" are so "volatile". COuld it be because the citizens feel this is being rammed down our throats without proper study, discussion and analysis? There's nothing "urgent" about fixing the healthcare system...except for campaign schedules. scoutldr in Va. (another "open carry" state). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eisely Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 At his New Hampshire pep rally for healthcare...oops I was supposed to say townhall...Obama himself held up the comparison of the US Postal Service to UPS and FedEx. Wow! It turns out the private sector is more efficient than the government. Our leader said so himself. Actually that is somewhat of an unfair slam at the postal service. The real lesson from the comparison is that the postal service has always been a politically driven enterprise, and the politics is one of the things that makes it inefficient. Let's see now, so far our leader has insulted doctors, voters, and now letter carriers. Who is he going to insult next -- the UAW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now