Conservative blogger Matt Lewis compares Beck to P.T. Barnum, wonders if he "does more harm than good" for conservatives
August 18, 2009 1:32 pm ET
From the August 17 edition of CBN News Tonight:
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
And really, what's the reasoning behind doing that? I know, the stories I've read said basically, "Because I can, and it's legal" or something of that nature.
I think it's a danger to the President, and the people who have come out to see him, or protest against him really. All you need is one person to get really angry, and some shots are going to get fired, and while Obama has the best protection in the world, not so much for the average Joe's out there either protesting or supporting the President. Last thing I'd like to see is anyone getting shot.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. The guys carrying are legal gun owners, and are following the law, but they're definitely not following the law of common sense. What if someone takes it from them and uses it on someone else? What if they decide to take matters into their own hands?
Case in point. I live in Asheville, NC. A town known for being all about the outdoors really. Hiking, fishing, camping, hunting, cycling, motorcycling, you name it, you can do it there. I read last week that a man was out with his family (wife, and child) riding their bikes along a road in Asheville. Guy's child was in a kiddie trailer. Some guy stopped to tell the man and his wife that he shouldn't be riding on the road with his kid in the trailer. Words were exchanged, but no physical altercation, but apparently, the guy who stopped his vehicle and felt the need to tell someone else who he didn't even know what to do was so enraged, he went back to his truck, pulled out his handgun, and shot at the husband. Luckily, he missed him, but not by much. The slug went through the guy's bike helmet passing less than inch from his head.
What does this have to do with these protests? Nothing really, except that the guy who shot at this other man was legally carrying his gun, and, get this, he is a local firefighter.
There is no need to have your assault rifle slung over your shoulder during a rally/protest. It's only there for intimidation factors, and that's it. It's got nothing to do with the legality of it. And the fact that these guys doing this aren't using their brain, or common sense, at all.
They are preening and showing off... there's no other reason to go openly armed to such an event. Secretly, many are hoping for an excuse to use the gun.
Again, it's just a common sense kind of thing. Legally, I'm fine with them if they want to bring one to a protest, but use your brain (which is the main problem, they either don't have one, or have just shut it off), and leave your firearm at home.
I have an uncle who's a hunter, which is fine (I usually get a slab of venison every year); unfortunately, he has fallen for the "liberals want to take my guns away" line, and is simply beyond reason on the topic.
I would like to have more stringent gun controls in place, definitely, especially for automatic weapons. But target practice, hunting, and trophy guns are all perfectly okay by me.
The biggest percentage of gun owners are very conscious about it. The number of those who get a God-Complex becuase they think it represents some Power they then have over others is very, very small, and would be even smaller if lawful, responsible ownership was more prevalent.
I remember as a kid, there nearly nearly always hunting rifles in a few back-windows in the High School parking lot. No one ever got shot, they were never pulled out in anger. Thank Hollywood and the inner-city retard "gang bangers" for the mass mis-conceptions and problems of today where that is concerned. Don't blame law-abiding Citizens.
Teabagging terrorists who think they are "law-abiding Citizens" are a bigger reason to worry and direct the blame to then "Hollywood":
Nancy Genovese
Robert Neil Joos
Dennis Mahon
Daniel Mahon
Hal Turner
Daniel James Murray
Shawna Forde
James von Brunn
Scott Roeder
Daniel Cowart
Paul Schlesselman
Thomas Coletto, aka "Vito Lombardi"
Joshua Cartwrigh
Daniel Knight Hayden
Timothy McVeigh
Terry Nichols
Dannie Baker
Richard Andrew Poplawski
Dr. Nicholas Bartha
Jim Adkisson
Abortion Clinic bombers
Sulejman Talovic
Charles Carl Roberts
Aaron Kyle Hoff
Jennifer San Marco
Jeffery Weise
Robert Steinhauser
Michael McDermott
The Boston Tea Party, a fundamental event in our Nations History, part of our Heritage and Legacy, of our very government and Laws,,, would indeed be called an act of 'terrorism' today.
There is absolutely nothing "American" about diminishing our Rights, or quashing our spirit of resistance to any and all forms of Tyranny.
I know that they are doing this to show that they can express their second amendment rights. However its takes a special breed to bring gun to a function that you know before hand that the President of the United States is there (and this means secret service) and it raises a few thoughts:
1. Besides exercising your second amendment right, why bring your gun?
2. Since you know the President is going to be there and yet you still bring a gun, why act surprised when you get singled out for having a firearm?
3. Are you willing to draw your firearm?
4. If yes to number three, are you willing to go to jail for whatever reasons you may have had for drawing your firearm?
that's all
And the simpleton constituency chimes in.
Nerzog wasn't talking about the legality about the hicks, he was talking about the common sense of the hicks...a concept that is vacant and you just helped proved that fact. Just imagine the fake outrage if an American-Muslim was protesting an herr dubyah event with a rifle slung on his shoulder. You bed wetting teabaggers would be imploding with anger and dropped to the fetal position with fear. I know common sense is lost on your type, so just please reply with some nonsensical rant about Clinton or Carter.
"Libertarians" are just cowards either afraid and/or ashamed to call themselves "Republicans".
This whole idea of there is "us" and "we" are all right and good and all-knowing,,, and then there are all the rest, who are stupid and blind and dangerous,,, and any other disparaging label we can throw at them to make ourselves look and feel better... is utter nonsence,,, its retarded,,, its thinly veiled hooliganism.
Obviously, that isn't a frame-of-mind that the rank-and-file of any one Party has a lock on.
T: I don't read The Talking Points verbatim.
They are going to have to widen the perimeter which just makes everyone upset because nobody can get close.
I'm not a gun owner/enthusiast, but I don't begrudge anyone who owns one.
I personally think it's foolish to own a gun, because statistics show that gun owners are far more likely to be a victim of a gun injury than non-gun owners.
A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.
Just like people in a crowd carying a semi-automatic weapon to an event with POTUS is far more likely to be profiled than those who aren't.
Are those statistics including 'households' that are already involved in illegal activities? (drugs, gangs, theft etc)
As for suicides, obviously there are some serious underlying condition(s) in those cases that <newsflash/reality-check> weren't 'caused' by a certain inanimate object being in the home.
How about a statistic of how many innocent people our after-the-fact 'Justice System' has EVER been able to un-kill, un-rape or in any way un-victimize? What is the batting average on that?
One of our most basic, fundamental Rights we have,,, is to not allow ourselves to become victims in the first place. Justice is quite often an on-the-spot affair, and often must be decided in the heat of the moment. Sure, it would be better to sit back and deal with things rationally, and resolve disputes in a more civilized fashion, but that only works when all parties involved are capable and interested in going those routes. Someone breaking into a Home, jacking a car, pulling a woman into an alley,,, they've already made their choice on that. Perhaps if they were keenly aware that they were more likely to forfeit their lives in the attempt than they were to get away with the crime, or get a slap on the wrist, they would start making better choices.
No. It should not, never, ever in a Democratic Republic that abides by our Constitution. In fact, what you are proposing goes AGAINST our Constitution. Yet, no one is surprised.
No, it does not in any way go "Against" our Constitution. It is a basic, fundamental Right, one of the few instances where the Law of Nature and the Law of Man are in total agreement.
You have the Right, moreover you have the Duty, to NOT allow yourself or your Family or any other innocent person to be raped or murdered or victimized.
Justice and Society are both well served when the innocent remain inviolate, and the guilty meet with Consequence.
Owning a gun to protect yourself from that infrequent event when simply owning a gun is more dangerous is just poor judgement.
And for you to say in your prior post "...statistics show that gun owners are far more likely to be a victim of a gun injury than non-gun owners.
Thats like pointing out that those who get into automobiles are statistically more likely to be involved in an auto accident. (which is FAR more likely)"
...that statement proves my point. You actually agree with me. The difference is, I take the risk of driving a car because it serves a necessary purpose, I don't own a gun because it doesn't server a purpose.
The use of illicit drugs and prior family violence were taken into account when this study was done. The notable comment about this study was "Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance"
You believe you are safer because you own a gun, that is your right and I'm probably never going to be able to change your mind.
I have the right not to own a gun because I believe that it is more dangerous for me and my family to own a gun than to not own a gun.
We have a society built on fear and that fear drives many Americans to own a firearm in order to feel safe. I contend that that feeling is illusionary and in fact feel more at risk if I owned a firearm. But that's just my opinion.
As far as the innocent people who were killed, raped or victimized? It's impossible to say how many of them would have avoided their fate because they owned a hand gun. I don't know of any study, it would be interesting to see. I feel pretty confident that it wouldn't be 100%. I also feel that if everyone carried a gun around, there would be a lot more innocent people injured or killed. I would feel less safe if everyone carried a gun because although I know that I could be a responsible gun owner (if I had to be) I don't have that confidence with everyone around me.
BTW, the second amendment doesn't stop at the comma . . . you have to read the thing in its ENTIRETY to understand its meaning. I'm thinking you stop at the comma like the activists on our current S.Ct. did.
(In many ways, it is sad that the Ready Companies and Citizen Militias were killed off in America, as the simple fact that the 2nd Amendment IS Homeland Security. Constitution, remember? No standing armies, as they are dangerous to Liberty)
Fact is, back in the day, no one in their right mind expected a person who was being attacked to get on his horse and rde X# of miles to ask permission to defend hismself and his Family, then ride back to see the crime already finished. Same as today as there is often no time to make a phone call, or send an email to explain the situation, and in most cases there is no real presumption that the police will show up in time to save the day.
You are certainly free to Twitter your own victimization, moment-by-moment, if thats what you feel is best, but if you are dead, there is no Judge or Jury thats ever going to bring you back, and restore you to your prior condition. Period.
In any case, guns are as much a deterrent, as they are an equalizer. With self-defense as with the Militia, it is a terrible thing that the bad actions of a few, have cast such a bad light on the many, and have enabled the infringement of ALL our Rights.
48% of gun-owning households with children do NOT regularly make sure that guns are equipped with child safety locks or other trigger locks. (Peter Hart Research Associates Poll, July 1999)
That's a lot of bad decission making going on amongst gun owners.
And as far as I know, there is no effort by President Obama or the Democrats to repeal the 2nd Ammendment or limit gun ownership. But there is an overwhelming fear that this course of action is iminent... I wonder why?
I don't know of any overt efforts to repeal the 2nd Amendment at the moment either, else I'd have addressed it head-on. (Though the recent inexplained shortage in ammunition is a bit concerning)
The 'overwhelming fear', is on one hand a backlash to the anti-gun culture that has tried to put limitationa upon the Rights of gun ownership and use along with a push to make it less socially acceptable. On the other hand, but in the same vein, the notion that what might indeed be the best public policy for one place, is somehow also the best for all other places. As with any federal and sometimes even state level legislation that must be of ubiquitous operation across the length-and-breadth of its jurisdiction.
For instance, a major metropolitan area isn't going to have as many opportunities to hunt or target shoot, or even deal with large, sometimes dangerous pests as on a farm or in a rural area. There are more police in the vicinity in a metro area, as opposed to a rural setting where a call to the sherrif may see a considerable amount of time go by before they can be on-scene. The danger of stray shots is exponentially increased in an urban environment, as opposed to a rural one, and so on.
A big part of that fear, comes rightly because of groups that want to use a metropolitan area(s) as an example and excuse to push for broad legislation that negatively affects those who don't live in such an environment.
Anyway. Rather than focus on what some irresponsible retards do, how about looking to a country like Switzerland? Most every Citizen's home there has & has had a fully automatic assualt rifle. Most people are intensely trained in the safe use and storage of firearms in a Militia program thats much closer to our Constitution than what we have today. (Of course there are some glaring differences as well) Notably, their per capita violent crime rates are waaaay below ours.