Carrying weapons to town hall meetings

[Wild Cobra]

How about weapons or intimidation at polling places? Obviously our justice department
thinks it is alright.

Well, law abiding people realize that intimidation is not allowed at polling places, even without a weapon!

[CuckingFunt]

Well, you cannot board a plane with a firearm either. Different argument.

It wasn't an argument at all. Merely an observation.

I have no problem with that. Why? You assume we are a racist as you? Otherwise, how do you come across that belief?

Considering the Obama Waffle Mix, Curious George t-shirts, and outrage over Hussein that we all saw during the campaign, I feel very comfortable with the assumption that the radical right's hatred of Obama is at least somewhat racially motivated.

Additionally, I'm consistently amused by the suggestion that the left is racist or prejudiced because we acknowledge that there are racial and cultural differences in this country and that those differences have a very real impact on all of our lives. "Color blindness" is not the answer to racism, as it serves only to take centuries of history and injustices and sweep them under the rug.

[ChumpDumper]

Those are being overturned in the courts as cases are being heard. A few years ago, a teacher was fired in Oregon for carrying a concealed weapon. Since then, the courts are overturning such illegal laws.

Show me the laws that have been overturned.

[rjv]

alas, the social contract has as many interpretations as the bill of rights.

[Wild Cobra]

Considering the Obama Waffle Mix, Curious George t-shirts, and outrage over Hussein that we all saw during the campaign, I feel very comfortable with the assumption that the radical right's hatred of Obama is at least somewhat racially motivated.

I disagree, and if so, because he's Black. Not Muslim.

You have to remember it's only a small number of Muslims who have extreme beliefs, and even fewer who will act out on those beliefs.

It's not the overt acts that bother me, but on line with a statement made by William Cabot in The Sum of All Fears. He said something like "I'm not worried about those with hundreds of nukes. I'm worried about the person who has just one."

[jack sommerset]

That was always a legitimate safety issue. Look at what is possible if one accidentally discharges at high al ude!

High Al udes Thats the nightmare effect. Believe me if a gun accidentally discharged in a town meeting I would not be happy either.

[clambake]

It's not the overt acts that bother me, but on line with a statement made by William Cabot in The Sum of All Fears. He said something like "I'm not worried about those with hundreds of nukes. I'm worried about the person who has just one."

then you would have more than one, wouldn't you?

[CuckingFunt]

I disagree, and if so, because he's Black. Not Muslim.

You have to remember it's only a small number of Muslims who have extreme beliefs, and even fewer who will act out on those beliefs.

It's not the overt acts that bother me, but on line with a statement made by William Cabot in The Sum of All Fears. He said something like "I'm not worried about those with hundreds of nukes. I'm worried about the person who has just one."

Wait... what? I genuinely have no clue what point(s) you're attempting to make here.

[Wild Cobra]

then you would have more than one, wouldn't you?

That meaning flew right over you cuckoo's nest, didn't it?

Have you seen that movie? If not, it's worth seeing. The Sum of All Fears

Why do you fear people who arm themselves in the open? Even concealed? In the case of weapons, how many times must it be said. If someone wants to do illegal actions, it doesn't matter what the law is. the example I gave was the known enemy during the cold war. We both had nukes and we knew each other did. It was someone who obtained one that we didn't know about that almost caused WWIII.

[clambake]

Wait... what? I genuinely have no clue what point(s) you're attempting to make here.

he thinks the only racism that still exist in the states is reverse discrimination.

and he doesn't seem to understand where nukes come from.

[clambake]

That meaning flew right over you cuckoo's nest, didn't it?

Have you seen that movie? If not, it's worth seeing. [URL=http://www.imdb.com/ le/tt0164184/]The Sum of All Fears]

Why do you fear people who arm themselves in the open? Even concealed? In the case of weapons, how many times must it be said. If someone wants to do illegal actions, it doesn't matter what the law is. the example I gave was the known enemy during the cold war. We both had nukes and we knew each other did. It was someone who obtained one that we didn't know about that almost caused WWIII.

how long before you worry about the reality of "district 9"?

[Wild Cobra]

how long before you worry about the reality of "district 9"?

The new Sy Fy show?

LOL... You keep getting sillier...

[LnGrrrR]

Well, law abiding people realize that intimidation is not allowed at polling places, even without a weapon!

No, no. What I mean is, is the mere presence of an openly-carried weapon near a polling place a form of intimidation in and of itself?

[Wild Cobra]

No, no. What I mean is, is the mere presence of an openly-carried weapon near a polling place a form of intimidation in and of itself?

Bull . That's your own misguided fear.

[LnGrrrR]

Bull . That's your own misguided fear.

Then why are weapons prohibited from polling places?

Edit: Also, the question you responded to wasn't rhetorical.

[DarrinS]

You mean, like this man in Arizona?



http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...fle/index.html

This man is an Obama supporter. Is it ok for him to carry?

Anyone want to make a bet that Chris Matthews won't interview him?

[Wild Cobra]

Then why are weapons prohibited from polling places?

Edit: Also, the question you responded to wasn't rhetorical.

I don't have that answer, but they shouldn't be.

[DarkReign]

You could remove the word "churches" and subsitute it with any of the exceptions I listed and the point would still stand. Its just not that contentious of an issue for me.

My problem is, the scope of places one can carry and where one cannot is only due to expand.

Before long, you'll only be allowed to own a gun and keep it in your home with strict transport restrictions.

Thats why, to address your original post, I even weighed in on it. It isnt so much the restrictions currently in place, so much as where anti-gun people are willing to take it if some tragedy were to transpire in a place where there was no such restriction.

Ultimately, I dont give two s. Like I said, I am resigned to the neo-liberal philosophy that thinks government can solve problems and that the Bill of Rights is subject to re-interpretation based on current society's pussification into vegan, tree-hugging, government shills who eat, sleep and to the schedule passed down from their chosen moral authority.

Which wouldnt be so damn bad if they didnt think everyone should abide the same task masters they do. To them, its for the common good or some socio-progressive thinking.

I say the common good. Life, since the beginning of time immemorial, is a survival of the fittest. Small clusters of space mass are absorbed by larger space masses. Stars are born out of the chaos, heat and gravity of trillions of tons of little particles which explode in a nuclear reaction eclipsed only by the death of a star. In that explosion, massive chunks are thrown out into the new star's distant orbit and beyond, only to start the process anew of the strong vs weak. They conglomerate far out of reach of the new star into planets which go through a terrible, cataclysmic life cycle of unseen volcanic activity, deadly noxious gases, explosions, impacts from other masses to form what we know to be planets and satellites in present day.

How life started, I'll leave out. I believe it starts from extremophiles from extra terrestrial sources (comets, meteors, etc).

From day one in our protein-packed existence, our dominance requires subjugated animals to be eaten. The rise of the very term civilization and the romantic reverance with which it is referred is irony defined. Civilization was borne out of the bloodshed and conquer of others. Might made and will continue to make right.

American dominance can be directly attributed to our participation in WW2. No WW2, no American hegemony. Our dominance required an enemy, death and destruction. Now that we have no one to fight and conquer, as we are the preeminent power in the world, we have become stagnant and lazy. We turn inward and hearken to the glory days of yore that never really existed in the fashion and context we like to think they were.

We strive for world peace, green energy, a clean environment, social equality, economic non-advantage and other trivial messes of differing import in the name of being a more enlightened society by only our own dimensia and a collective willing suspension of disbelief.

We portray this self-annointed divinity only through talk and legislation on grand scales in an effort to deny who we are, what we are and how we got here. A majority of this country sees itself as a social experiment in human advancement, when in reality, we are far from any lofty goal our predecessors may have had.

Yet we still sing our own praises, wax poetic about our accomplishments (even if we had nothing to do with them at all) and generally make a mockery of constructive self-criticism. Our national iden y is a ing lie, plain and simple. Sure, we're better than most, but a rapist is above a murderer in the laws eyes, too.

To be honest, I abhore humanity and our constructs. But I, unlike 3/4 of the Western world's population and 100% of our governments, subscribe to no mass delusions of grandeur. That our purpose is greater than ourselves or that we have the means to eradicate the ill's of our society and the world at large. I know it is a fool's errand left to fools.

So, when it comes to the safety and security of the aforementioned 3/4 of the population at the expense of personal responsibility and liberty of nearly everyone I know, I say the common good. The human condition is one that does not lend itself well to the greater good. You can only step this process in degrees, little by little.

One century is not little by little, its fast-forward x1000. 100 years ago... , I am not going to list anything, think for yourselves. Think of our position in the world stage, what we had and what we do not have now, how we walk, talk and self-imagine. Of the natural and normal distrust of government has been washed away with loyalists and nationalists whom both see the world through a prism of "My way or the highway".

That used to be what seperated the US from everyone else. Now, moral legislation, cons utional amendments on behalf of the ing sanc y of marriage even being discussed with seriousness (?!?!!), healthcare as a cons utional right, gun-fearing pacifists, conscientious objectors to everything that invloves violence (McCain calling MMA "human -fighting"), fewer and fewer hunters, non-smoking healthnuts who want laws passed to prevent it at the expense of the personal choices of a private property owner, all while choking down processed meat that was injected full of steroids and antibiotics to prevent disease and stimulate advanced growth, which in turn creates a more robust human who diets almost exclusively on it (my theory, anyway), a government more concerned with its consolidation of power over everything and everyone than they are with the People they represent (nothing new here, really) only these days half the country agrees while the other half only means to argue the details of the collective capitulation and if "their guy" is the one who gets to do the controlling.

An entire society and way of thinking that expects to deny its place in nature, make better what can never be and at the expense of anyone who disagrees.

No...I'd like to be able to carry a gun, thanks. Youre raping me as is, allow me this small privilege that used to be a right and I'll pay for everyone's ing healthcare? Deal, right?

Oh, not enough? You want more! Ohhhhh! Boy, I never seen that coming .

[LnGrrrR]

DR, ever see the episode of South Park with the founders of America? You should give it a watch.

And really, do you think society was composed of better people in the 1800s? 1700s? The world's ALWAYS been messed up. No reason to hate it, or the people in it. I just accept it as it is, flawed.

[DarkReign]

alas, the social contract has as many interpretations as the bill of rights.

Well said.

[LnGrrrR]

I don't have that answer, but they shouldn't be.

So what do you think should cons ute "intimidation" at polling places? Verbal threats of violence only?

[DarkReign]

DR, ever see the episode of South Park with the founders of America? You should give it a watch.

And really, do you think society was composed of better people in the 1800s? 1700s? The world's ALWAYS been messed up. No reason to hate it, or the people in it. I just accept it as it is, flawed.

Far better people. FAR better people.

Better educated in every subject, all of them that were in existence at the time, anyway.
Better equipped in every aspect of "living". Ask yourself this, what is needed to live and reproduce? Take away the electricity from every American for 2 years and I guarantee when the lights turn on, we'll be far better off.

18th and 19th century humans wouldnt know the difference. 20th and 21st century Americans would die by the millions.

What we have in America today is an entire society of dependant heads who think theyre better than what they are. Like its their birth-right to be have everything that they have. When they take stock of their situation and truly come away thinking that healthcare/welfare/medicaid/bankruptcy is a ing right.

To me, these are the most dangerous people. Because their in the worst kind of denial...they have a support group of millions who think the same way.

Worst part of it is, and this truly proves there is no God btw, they'll never be there for the fall. I wish they were, I really do.

Its one of the reasons I wish oil would just run out already. Americans need a serious ing reality check. Myself included.

[Wild Cobra]

So what do you think should cons ute "intimidation" at polling places? Verbal threats of violence only?

Any intentionally directed action that purposely intimidates. Just carrying a weapon is not that. Someone elses unprovoked fear is their issue. It shouldn't impede others rights, and it selfish to deny others their rights because of fear.

[LnGrrrR]

Far better people. FAR better people.

Better educated in every subject, all of them that were in existence at the time, anyway.
Better equipped in every aspect of "living". Ask yourself this, what is needed to live and reproduce? Take away the electricity from every American for 2 years and I guarantee when the lights turn on, we'll be far better off.

18th and 19th century humans wouldnt know the difference. 20th and 21st century Americans would die by the millions.

What we have in America today is an entire society of dependant heads who think theyre better than what they are.

Its one of the reasons I wish oil would just run out already. Americans need a serious ing reality check. Myself included.

Why would you think that it takes more intelligence to survive without electronics?

Let's put it this way... as society builds, it specializes. That's just what happens. Eventually, you get to a point where the society NO LONGER NEEDS to know things from its past, because they have advanced significantly past it. (For instance, look at blacksmiths.) That's just a function of society.

Better educated? Honestly? We know more about the world than any other civilization. We are not SMARTER, per se, but better educated? Yes.

Heck, just look at literacy rates. http://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#illiteracy

However, in the late 19th century and early 20th century, illiteracy was very common. In 1870, 20 percent of the entire adult population was illiterate, and 80 percent of the black population was illiterate. By 1900 the situation had improved somewhat, but still 44 percent of blacks remained illiterate.

What about education in other areas, such as morality? Are we more or less moral than the 19th century?

Sure, the average family could live off the land better, but they couldn't make use of the land nearly half as well as we do now. We bio-engineer food for better characteristics, we draw energy from the elements, and we can perform millions of tasks quicker and more efficiently.

It's not looking down on people who choose to go hunting, or living off the land. But I can haul a lot more with a tractor, and I can build alot faster with a crane.

[LnGrrrR]

Any intentionally directed action that purposely intimidates. Just carrying a weapon is not that. Someone elses unprovoked fear is their issue. It shouldn't impede others rights, and it selfish to deny others their rights because of fear.

So generally, "intimidation at polling places" should be no different than "intimidation everywhere" if I'm reading your right.