Comments on: When 1st and 2nd Amendment Conflict: Protests, Guns and Double Standards

By: S Keiser

S Keiser — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:43:00 +0000

Mr Lindorff and everyone else in this post has been duped. The gentleman carrying the AR15 is almost certainly a plant, and CNN willingly or intentionally interviewed him in support of the Eric Holder and BHO agenda. In every place I have lived, at a minimum he would have been arrested immediately for brandishing a weapon. The SS would have taken him out if they thought he was a threat, and he was clearly in the middle of a friendly crowd who were not afraid (except for the gratuitous CNN interviewee who feigned terror!) No, he is there solely to help support the anti-gun lobby. I don’t care one way or the other about the political motivations, but this set up was so obvious it was offensive.

By: doozer

doozer — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:06:27 +0000

Richard appears to be right about fascism;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

For my part, as a non-partial gun owner, who is even more of a “crack shot” than the fellow above.. I believe the second amendment only makes sense in this day and age if we are allowed to own a tank or scud missiles :) The second amendment is simply exploited these days simply for the purpose of intimidation, even politically, i.e.; liberals are woosies becuase they don;t like to kill stuff. Clearly that is the issue here and I will state my case thusly- A number of these individuals admit to these guns being loaded.. I can understand the symbolism of a gun at a rally, but a loaded gun has only one purpose. I am curious what current military personnel would have on the subject of citizens walking around the country that they are protecting w/ loaded munitions simply for the effect of scaring people out of their perspectives. To agree w/ Richard, it’s a phallus orgy for intellectual inferiors who are intimidated in their daily lives by the intelligence of people around them.

Another point is this: doesn’t this situation create magnificent opportunities for terrorists and shooters who want to mask as protestors? What the hell? What about 9/11 and all that airport security garbage if we are going to let people do this? I believe the answer is precisely that.. it was a big show point on by the bush administration to attempt a fascist takeover of the greatest country of the world.. to agree again w/ richard.

Lets all remember that the pen is mightier than the sword (unless of course the pen scares you because you are emotionally and intellectually retarded, of course then you must resort to the desperation of firearms.)

By: rougy

rougy — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:57:54 +0000

You’re not crazy. You’re right on target (ha ha). Man, I remember Bush screening his audience, but I had actually forgotten about the “free speech” zones. Shame on me.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:56:48 +0000

Sorry, kgreg, but you must have been living on some other planet where there were “organized bands of protesters on both fringes of the spectrum”–the vast majority of the protesters, at both conventions, were there to tell BOTH parties that they were sick and tired of the thousands of Americans literally dying for LIES; dying, as it were, to satisfy Dick Cheney’s oil envy so he could install Halliburton, Blackwater, CACCI, and the rest to his fascist pals to run his little war. *Government run by business=fascism*, by the way. I know that it’s popular among some Republicans these days to try to convince America that *black man+white house=fascism*, but that’s another story. There was very little danger of protester-on-protester violence, or any real danger of any violence at all. Even the violence in Chicago in ’68 was, after hearings, determined to have been a “police riot.”

Oh, and by the way, I am a non-shooter, and a non-AR15 owner, confident in my masculinity without a huge metal phallus lurking in my closet, and if I did have one, I surely wouldn’t have to tell everyone about it on blogs to distract from my nerdy insecurity.

Thus endeth *your* lesson. ;-p What are you gonna do, shoot me? lmfao

By: kgreg

kgreg — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:10:29 +0000

The “free speech zones” that you mentioned were a fixture of both political parties conventions. The purpose of these zones had nothing to do with free “speech”-they were to prevent outright riots from well organized bands of protesters on both fringes of the political spectrum.

As a shooter, and an AR15 owner, I am also troubled by these “stunts”. Personally, I don’t think I would want to be in the crosshairs of several snipers with their fingers resting on 3lb. triggers for the duration of the rally.

As a “mere” citizen and taxpayer (who, by the way is no fan of the current administration) I am deeply concerned that the resources that we fund to protect the office of the president, regardless who occupies it, are being distracted by such stunts.

Whether you voted for or approve of Mr. Obama, he does occupy the office and that in and of itself qualifies him to be provided by a “balloon” of safety courtesy of the taxpayer.

Here endeth the lesson. :D

By: Baxter Conley

Baxter Conley — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:09:33 +0000

Alex Hatcher makes and incredibly stupid point.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:37:43 +0000

Isn’t this clearly an example of the 2nd amendment working as intended?

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:31:04 +0000

people relax

By: stillahippie

stillahippie — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:17:02 +0000

I was never anti gun until this year I used to be a gun owner yet in 68 years of life a lot of those years spent in very dangerous places I have never found the need to fire or even pull a gun, I have to wonder what kind of person would go to a town meeting or hang around outside a venue were the President is speaking with hand guns strapped to to there hips and semi automatics slung on there necks. I hope it makes them feel strong and powerful because they looked like the fools they are.I felt embarest those fools and most embarest for my country. almost every day there is a drive by in the new in my town.
I promise I have read and reread the constitution and it doesn’t give nut cases any kind of right to “open carry” in a attempt to intimidate peoples right of free speech.

By: Alex Hatcher

Alex Hatcher — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:11:51 +0000

You report in Philly, which is in PA right?

and PA has a will issue for CCW. so the guys that GET a legal CCW can be carrying right now. on the streets, cars, the El, trains etc.

and you are worried about the ‘sudden shooting in the crowd?’ from a public open carry?

seems that your boss just wanted a anti-gun, anti-bush rant, and you wrote it!