Leave Your Guns At Home!

I bet you can’t guess which one of the two main subjects in this photo is carrying two guns:

whos.got.the.gun

If you guessed the older, quirky-looking guy in the red hat, you’d be dead wrong. It’s the guy he’s speaking to–identified only as “Chris”–who raised eyebrows when he showed up, well-dressed, with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle slung over his right shoulder and a 9mm handgun strapped to his hip at President Obama’s visit to Phoenix yesterday.

Personally, I have no opinion on Obama coming to my city (at least not one that I’m willing to express). He’s going to come here. He’s the President. But when a few Second Amendment supporters showed up at the rally, the 300 or so pro-Obama supporters standing in their designated protest area just about went into conniptions.

This is a Presidential event! What if someone grabs that gun and mishandles it? It can go off and hurt the President! How can you be allowed to carry your guns in plain view when you’re outside a heavily-armed convention center while the President is speaking? CAN’T YOU LEAVE YOUR GUNS AT HOME?!?

Oh. My. God.

Aside from the fact that this group talked to Phoenix Police officers and told them several days prior to the event that they would be there with their weapons in accordance with Arizona law, they were in a designated public demonstration area. If you read the reports from the AP about these guys, there’s a single blurb about one Secret Service agent who was quoted as saying they weren’t worried about these guys. What you’ll see far more of are hysterical quotes from pro-Obama protesters, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and media shills who have never been fans of us conservatives exercising our Second Amendment rights. Now they have a new gripe: you can’t carry anywhere near a Presidential event!

I’m not afraid of those guys. How likely is it, do you think, that they’ll stroll into a public place, where the Secret Service isn’t going to let the President anywhere near, with guns in full view so they can kill someone? How likely is it that someone else is going to grab their guns and try to shoot someone else? How often have you heard of that sort of thing happening? The reality is that the vast majority of all gun deaths occur during the commission of a crime. The rest happen while someone handling the weapon stray from the most basic gun safety rules. The exact same facts can be applied to vehicular deaths, but nobody’s out trying to ban people from buying or driving cars.

And the Presidential thing? Really? If you’re gonna go there, I wanna see your outrage over THIS crap:

bushgun

killbush

killbush003

Thaaaaat’s right. Shut up.

Advertisements

57 thoughts on “Leave Your Guns At Home!

  1. Yeah, I thought that was pretty wacky myself. And I own several and used to have a CCW but have never been keen about “open carry (and NH is supposed to be an open carry state too).” I feel it is much more effective to carry concealed so as to not attract the crazies. I understand they are making a point and I trust the Secret Service had things well in hand. Just makes the rest of us look like nuts. On the other hand if you routinely carry concealed, I see no problem going to a rally so long as it is not in an area where firearms are already prohibited (a school for instance). You know you are carrying but no one else does (or should) so there’s no problem.
    AndyB, NH.

  2. Oh, give me a break. I’m sorry, but a postage stamp and a t-shirt (which, by the way, came from the French, thank you very much) is not at all comparable to showing up armed at a presidential event. This is absolutely ludicrous. I can’t bring four fucking ounces of hair gel on an airplane, but these pieces of shits are allowed to bring goddamn guns to a presidential event? Seriously? And you have the temerity to get upset when someone rightfully labels these people nuts? You know damn well if anyone was caught armed at a Bush event, they would’ve been immediately hauled off. Oh, as a matter of fact:

    http://articles.latimes.com/1989-04-04/local/me-1086_1_bush-rally

    And it wasn’t even a real gun!

    Even a ten year old can correctly identify intimidation, and these psychos are doing just that. Legal or not, it’s common sense not to bring a gun to a presidential event. It’s also legal to run into a church and profess your love for satan, but no one in their right mind would do that either. This is ridiculous. Only an asshole would bring a gun to a public event knowing the President would be there…

  3. So what? The President is there. Big deal. He should have his own gun. It’s a free country and carrying a gun around is not a privilege; it is a right guaranteed under the constitution. It is no less constitutional than this blog, or an anti-war protest, or cutting off a chicken’s head for a blood sacrifice for your religion.

  4. Guns, guns, guns…Oy!!!!

    Three weeks ago on 60 Minutes I learned that every year 13,000 people are killed by Drunk Drivers. That averages out to one death every 40 minutes.

    Do we ban cars because a small group of drivers misuse cars? Cars and guns are tools. All tools have proper and improper uses.

    It was true yesterday, it is true now, and it will be true tomorrow, people kill other people.

  5. “Only an asshole would bring a gun to a public event knowing the President would be there…”

    Only as asshole would attend an Obama event, armed or not.

    “but these pieces of shits are allowed to bring goddamn guns to a presidential event?”

    Yes. They were allowed. If they were not allowed then they would not have done it.

  6. I meant to type:

    Only an asshole would attend an Obama event, armed or not.

    Still, thanks Steve.

    My friends who are liberals ask me why I don’t like Obama. I tell them there are not enough days in the week to express why I dislike him.

  7. “Do we ban cars because a small group of drivers misuse cars? Cars and guns are tools. All tools have proper and improper uses.”

    There’s a pretty glaring difference there, John. Cars were not invented with the sole purpose of causing destruction. Guns were. Furthermore, cars are banned from certain places, like sidewalks. Cars are meant to be on the street, in their designated place, in between neat little lines. Guns, on the other hand, have no place at an event where meaningful dialogue is supposed to be taking place. What a magnificent stretch though, trying to compare the two…

  8. “It’s a free country and carrying a gun around is not a privilege; it is a right guaranteed under the constitution”

    That is not true. Carrying a gun is most certainly a privilege. Hence, the ability of said privilege to be stripped. Felons can’t own guns. Likewise, people with diminished capacity can’t own them. It’s not a right. Most gun nuts don’t bother to read the second amendment in its entirety. I know, I know, one sentence is pretty long for a constitutional amendment…

  9. I think the distinction is between a free people and servants. Free people have the god given right to their own protection whereas servants/peasants/subjects do not (unless their gov’t graciously allows them to keep antique dueling pistols, which NYC won’t).
    Also, cars or transportation in general is a convenience not any sort of a right. Still, common sense should dictate your behavior behind the wheel or with a firearm. I look at these people and think “Just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it.”
    Still, if the secret service isn’t worried I’m not. Besides, the folks openly armed are obvious and will be watched. Maybe it’s the Lyndon LaRouche people and there Obama/hitler posters we should worry about (not only because they want the government to run health care)?
    AndyB, NH (PS VT doesn’t require a permit for concealed carry, they must be committing crimes all over, right?).

  10. Andy you make an excellent point. Since we all know that the lady who argued with Barney Frank and used the term “Nazi” was a LaRouche Democrat and the artist behind the joker-Obama picture was a Dennis Kucinich supporter (and the same people wished death of Bush), it seems its the “progressives” we need to beware of.

    The logic is very simple….you have eight people in a room, four of them are “felons” and four of them are law-abiding. You can impose the strictest gun laws and the “felons” will get them still and the law-abiders have no way of defending themselves. Who’s left standing?

  11. By the way, it’s fair to assume that based on the simple logic described here that along with global warming rhetoric about carbon footprints, abortion, and taking guns away from decent folks who have the right to defend themselves, along with the average foreign policy stance of any progressive who defends terrorists at Guantanamo – AND top it off with the health care rationing they want, that this is just another example of liberals and their anti-human positions.

  12. “AND top it off with the health care rationing they want, that this is just another example of liberals and their anti-human positions.”

    You are a fool if you don’t think that rationing is exactly what goes on now. All your posturing on how a public option will result in rationing is meaningless because health care is rationed TODAY – by insurance companies. My best friend’s grandmother was in the hospital after a hip replacement surgery. Her doctors recently had to, for lack of a better word, kick her out, because, according to her insurance company, she wasn’t making progress sufficient enough to warrant her taking up a bed in the hospital. If she had been deemed to be making adequate progress, she’d still be receiving treatment in the form of physical therapy. Amanda has to now travel all the way to Florida to take care of her grandmother because she will no longer have the care that she was getting in the hospital. And I really don’t have the heart to tell her that 95% of all elderly recipients of hip replacement die within a year of getting that surgery. That is rationing, Steve. Your unfounded fears that that will happen under the government is happening already, so save your talking point for someone gullible enough to believe it.

  13. And by the way, accusing liberals of being anti human while advocating for preemptive wars, torture, and a free market that “weeds out trash” (resulting in people living in their cars and offing their families) would be absolutely laughable if it weren’t so horrid a position to take…

  14. “You are a fool if you don’t think that rationing is exactly what goes on now.”

    As John stated before: there are 300 million Americans and all will not and cannot be turned down for care in any emergency room; not to mention state aid, medical cards, etc. provided by welfare systems for decades.

    46 million of them don’t have insurance. 15% – that’s hardly a crisis.

    There is no rationing to medical care. If there is, tell Chris Dodd he should have got treatment for his prostate cancer in the UK or Canada.

  15. “And by the way, accusing liberals of being anti human while advocating for preemptive wars, torture, and a free market that “weeds out trash” (resulting in people living in their cars and offing their families) would be absolutely laughable if it weren’t so horrid a position to take…”

    The war removed Saddam which means more humans will live than the ones that died as part of the mission.

    It is believed (though the White House miraculously won’t release the memos now) that “torture” or “waterboarding” (known as a vacation day to anyone who went through water curing by the Japanese decades ago) prevented massive attacks and lead to the arrests and convictions and capture of many of their friends.

    The free market made the way for the Irish who came over here to escape the potato blight and lived in cardboard boxes and worked for mere pennies a week to have a chance and survive, to build unbreakable roots for generations later to enjoy. The ones you think need to pay for this health care mess being discussed in the House.

    The best human success story a liberal could possibly come up with from this point on is how one little boy had a dream and grew up to get a government job.

  16. “there are 300 million Americans and all will not and cannot be turned down for care in any emergency room;”

    So what the hell makes you think it will be any different under a government run program? You just took all the air out of your own argument…

    “46 million of them don’t have insurance. 15% – that’s hardly a crisis.”

    What a douche.

    “There is no rationing to medical care. If there is, tell Chris Dodd he should have got treatment for his prostate cancer in the UK or Canada”

    Chris Dodd is a Senator. A Senator, who, oddly enough, enjoys ACTUAL socialized medicine…

  17. “The war removed Saddam which means more humans will live than the ones that died as part of the mission.”

    I shouldn’t’ have, but I actually laughed when I read this. So happy that you think Saddam could have or would have killed close to a million people…

    “It is believed (though the White House miraculously won’t release the memos now) that “torture” or “waterboarding” (known as a vacation day to anyone who went through water curing by the Japanese decades ago) prevented massive attacks and lead to the arrests and convictions and capture of many of their friends.”

    That is ridiculous and outright false. You would know that if you listened to the testimony of our interrogator who was actually there. He got Abu Zubaydah to talk within an hour, without laying a finger on him. And as a matter of fact, once others began torturing him, the flow of information stopped. It doesn’t work. It never has, but yet and still, the truth will not deter from regurgitating the same bullshit and lies. So whatever.

  18. “So what the hell makes you think it will be any different under a government run program? You just took all the air out of your own argument…”

    Wait – so if nothing is going to change under a government run program, then why implement it and charge the taxpayers? Where did the air come out of?

    “Chris Dodd is a Senator. A Senator, who, oddly enough, enjoys ACTUAL socialized medicine”

    Huge roaring laughs at that one. Maybe that’s why they’re opting out of this one, huh. Because they REALLY like us.

    So, let me get this straight….Dodd stayed here because in his case, it’s already like Canada?

    “So happy that you think Saddam could have or would have killed close to a million people…”

    America didn’t kill close to a million people, but I like that you’re once again erring on the side of evil and insanity. He did kill hundreds of thousands within his own borders alone in his quest and hunger for power. Please don’t blame America for that one, it’s really getting old now.

    “You would know that if you listened to the testimony of our interrogator who was actually there. He got Abu Zubaydah to talk within an hour, without laying a finger on him.”

    Fine, then tell your Presidency of Transparency to release the memos.

  19. “There’s a pretty glaring difference there, John. Cars were not invented with the sole purpose of causing destruction. Guns were. ”

    What the deuce?

    Guns were invented as a weapon of war, a method of self protection, a means to hunt wild animals, and a tool used in the sport of competitive target shooting.

    Guns were not invented so people can commit cold blooded murder. Sadly they can be used in that manner. So can a car, a baseball bat, a shovel, and a tire iron.

    My comparison is right on.

  20. “46 million of them don’t have insurance. 15% – that’s hardly a crisis.”

    What a douche.

    Excuse me? That 46 million does not include poor people. They have Medicaid. That 46 million does not include people who qualify for S-chip. If they don’t apply then is that stupid or really stupid?

    What that 46 million does include are younger people who don’t belive they need insurance. They are in their 20’s, in excellent health, and they don’t see the need to pay money for something they won’t need in the near future. I would not do such a thing if I were them. But, they do this.

    That leaves the people with pre-existing conditions who either won’t pay the risk adjusted health insurance premiums or can’t pay because no company will insure them.

    That’s not a crisis.

    This all boils down to people who munch on the Krispy Kremes and expect everyone else to pay for it. Sorry, no can do, no will do, no should do.

  21. “And I really don’t have the heart to tell her that 95% of all elderly recipients of hip replacement die within a year of getting that surgery. That is rationing, Steve. Your unfounded fears that that will happen under the government is happening already, so save your talking point for someone gullible enough to believe it.”

    Not quite. If it were rationed then this person’s grandma never would have received the hip transplant.

    Rationing occurs when a treatment plan is denied because someone deems it medically unnecessary or medically non-beneficial.

  22. Robert, the guy in the LA Times story that you linked had openly expressed a desire to FIRE A GUN AT THE PRESIDENT. There’s one hell of a huge difference between telling everyone you want to shoot at a man then showing up at the event you threatened to do this at with what appears to be a gun and going to a public protest area far from where the President will be with your weapons, which you talked to law enforcement about before doing.

    “You are a fool if you don’t think that rationing is exactly what goes on now.”

    Oh, really? Then how is it when I call my doctor now, I can get an appointment within 24 hours and she’ll see me exactly when she said she would? Rationing is completely different than what’s going on now, and you just proved yourself to be ignorant of the realities of healthcare rationing with that statement.

    Rationing is horrid. You get sick and call the doctor, and they say, “okay, show up tomorrow and wait in the queue.” Most people can wait all day and never see a doctor; a nurse comes out at the end of the day and says, “come back tomorrow.” In Canada, it can take a month to see a doctor when you get sick.

    In Great Britain, they kept pushing the median age for PAP smears further and further back until they began realizing that the incidence of women with cervical cancer was on the rise; women who should have been tested much earlier went without due to rationing. They kept saying, “you’re too young, you don’t need that test yet!”

    And drugs? In Canada, when you’re given a prescription there’s no guarantee that the drugs you receive won’t have expired. It happens all the time. THAT is rationing–the government saying, “we can’t afford this, so we’re going to find a way to cut back and you don’t have any say in the matter.”

    “So happy that you think Saddam could have or would have killed close to a million people…”

    Don’t you ever spew that debunked bullshit on this forum again. It’s a lie and it’s been proven so. It’s straight from George Soros’s personally-funded crusade.

    NOW, back onto the original subject–which, I believe, was guns and the hypocrisy of Democrats on this incident–speak up and admit that Democrats were wrong in joking about killing Bush or shut the hell up about citizens carrying guns at a protest. The only people freaking out are YOU GUYS, because you’re so afraid of these things that you don’t want anyone to have them.

  23. “The only people freaking out are YOU GUYS, because you’re so afraid of these things that you don’t want anyone to have them.”

    Amen! When they get pushed out of windows or thrown in front of a bus instead of getting shot they’ll still whine and complain. Dead is dead. One method of murder doesn’t leave you any less dead vs. another.

    I can see it now:

    Liberal #1: “Did you read in the paper this morning about the old man who was robbed in his house and stabbed to death?”

    Liberal #2: “Yes I did. Thank God guns are banned. I am so happy he wasn’t shot to death.”

    Liberal #1: “We really need to ban knives. They are very dangerous.”

    TEN YEARS LATER

    Liberal #1 “Did you hear about that guy who was robbed in his house? The intruder beat him to death with a baseball bat.”

    Liberal #2 “Yes that really is tragic. We’ve managed to ban guns, knives and shovels. Boy did the construction and agriculture lobbies fight those shovel law. But I am not sure we can defeat Major League Baseball. By the way, why is it so dark in here?”

    Liberal #1: “Don’t be an idiot. Windows were banned five years ago so people won’t get pushed out of them.”

    Liberal #2 “I am not an idiot. My Conservative neighbor is the idiot. That fool still believes that people kill other people. How stupid is that?”

  24. “Wait – so if nothing is going to change under a government run program, then why implement it and charge the taxpayers? Where did the air come out of?”

    You seem to think that rationing will occur under a public option, then you turn around and admit that no one will be turned away from the ER. You can’t have it both ways, either you think it will rationed or you don’t. You’re arguing with yourself at this point.

    “So, let me get this straight….Dodd stayed here because in his case, it’s already like Canada?”

    What the hell are you talking about? Dodd gets care above and beyond what you or I get. Why on earth would he go to Canada?

  25. “Guns were invented as a weapon of war”

    Thank you for proving me right. Automobiles were not invented as weapons of war. Just stop trying to compare the two and you’ll do just fine.

    “Guns were not invented so people can commit cold blooded murder”

    Guns were created with the sole purpose of causing as much destruction as possible. Cars were not. Are we clear?

  26. “Rationing occurs when a treatment plan is denied because someone deems it medically unnecessary or medically non-beneficial.”

    And what exactly do you call giving grandma the boot from the hospital where she was receiving physical therapy? The doctors didn’t want to do that, they were forced to do so by her insurance company.

    And this is even more to the point. Insurance companies deny people care every day under the guise of keeping premiums down because you have a pre existing condition. If that isn’t rationing, I don’t know what is…

  27. “Guns were created with the sole purpose of causing as much destruction as possible. Cars were not. Are we clear?”

    Hardly. I am not the one enjoying the view.

    War is not cold blooded murder. If an army invades the U.S. what do we fight them with? Sticks and stones?

    If people are hungry do they chase a deer down and strangle it?

    Finally, no weapon or something that can be used as a weapon destroys anything. People destroy things. People choose to destroy things.

  28. “This all boils down to people who munch on the Krispy Kremes and expect everyone else to pay for it. Sorry, no can do, no will do, no should do.”

    That is incredibly nearsighted. That is NOT what it boils down to. You seem to be under the impression that cardiovascular health encompasses all of health care and maintenance. You are wrong. That is one component, but what about cancer, what about congenital defects? What about broken and fractured limbs? We can’t all be expected to have our food choices dictate whether or not we have prolapsed organs. Moral of the story: don’t be ridiculous.

  29. “And what exactly do you call giving grandma the boot from the hospital where she was receiving physical therapy? The doctors didn’t want to do that, they were forced to do so by her insurance company.”

    She can’t receive physical therapy (PT) at home? My neighbor received her PT at home. Was this person totally and completely cut off from all PT? Why keep someone in a hospital for PT only? That is a waste of money. It is cheaper to put the person in a skill nursing facility (SNF) or send them home. You only stay at hospital when you need nursing care not PT only.

    Where I live in you need PT after surgery then you go home or to a SNF as matter of standard practice.

    Either you don’t know all of the details Robert or you are not sharing all of the details.

  30. “Moral of the story: don’t be ridiculous.”

    I am not being ridiculous. If I have five speeding tickets and 3 DUI’s then my auto insurance will be outrageously high because of my driving record. Why should you pay higher premiums because I do not know how to properly operate a motor vehicle? The answer is simple, you don’t pay higher premiums. You pay based on your risk cohort as do I.

    The same goes for health insurance. We all pay based on our cohort. Someone with a plethora of health issues is in a different cohort from someone who is healthy. Each person pays based on risk. Man do people get in such a snit about such things.

  31. “There’s one hell of a huge difference between telling everyone you want to shoot at a man then showing up at the event you threatened to do this at with what appears to be a gun and going to a public protest area far from where the President will be with your weapons, which you talked to law enforcement about before doing.”

    True, but the underlying premise is the same. Why is that we haven’t heard about anyone armed at a presidential event in over twenty years? Like I said before, even a child knows what an intimidation tactic looks like.

    “Rationing is completely different than what’s going on now, and you just proved yourself to be ignorant of the realities of healthcare rationing with that statement”

    No it is not, and now we see who the ignorant one is. Never did I say that doctors ration health care. Doctors don’t enjoy having to kick people out of hospitals because patients are deemed to be making adequate progress. Doctors don’t decide who gets a potentially life saving treatment or not. These are all decisions made by the insurance company. So, until you get to hear horror stories on a nightly basis from someone who actually sees this all firsthand, I think I’ll direct your claims of ignorance back at you, where they actually belong.

    “In Canada, it can take a month to see a doctor when you get sick.”

    That is a blatant lie. Phony stories are abound by lunatics like Glenn Beck, but the minister of health for the entire country has contradicted you loons time and time again. True, you don’t go to the top of the pile for a hangnail, but you’re seen in a timely manner. When it’s a direct affect on your health, you’re seen. That is a fact.

    “And drugs? In Canada, when you’re given a prescription there’s no guarantee that the drugs you receive won’t have expired. It happens all the time. THAT is rationing–the government saying, “we can’t afford this, so we’re going to find a way to cut back and you don’t have any say in the matter.””

    You picked a bad example to lie about. Drugs are cheap for a reason, and that is the government is allowed to negotiate with drug companies for price control, a practice that is disgustingly banned in this country.

    “Don’t you ever spew that debunked bullshit on this forum again. It’s a lie and it’s been proven so. It’s straight from George Soros’s personally-funded crusade.”

    So, the Lancet is funded by George Soros? The U.N. is funded by George Soros? Don’t you dare cop a righteous attitude because you can’t face the realities of a war caused by your bullshit ideology. You wanted it, now live with the reality. I suppose it’s also the machinations of wild eyed liberals that 4.5 million refugees were created as a result of our occupation, right? Apparently, where you come from, something is only the truth if you want to believe it is. You can disagree with me bringing this to light, but don’t think that you can disagree with numbers compiled by reputable medical journals and the United Nations. It smacks of desperation.

    “speak up and admit that Democrats were wrong in joking about killing Bush or shut the hell up about citizens carrying guns at a protest”

    I’m sorry, exactly how many assassination plots were foiled during Bush’s presidency? And how during Obama’s first six months? What are we up to, three? To Bush’s zero? Give me a break. Blaming anyone but the French for the French’s desires is just plain stupid.

    “The only people freaking out are YOU GUYS, because you’re so afraid of these things that you don’t want anyone to have them.”

    How comfortable would you feel around someone who’s mentally unstable enough to carry a sign that denotes a threat while simultaneously packing a pistol? You know goddamn well if a Democrat showed up with a visible weapon to one of W.’s events, you’d have screamed bloody murder. I guarantee you wouldn’t be championing the imaginary right to bear arms then. Only Daddy Bush had to deal with it, so I guess we’ll never know.

  32. “Why keep someone in a hospital for PT only? That is a waste of money.”

    Funny, that’s what the insurance company thought. That is precisely why I call it rationing. You just made a judgment call based on a financial aspect of something. That is the very element of health care than needs to be abolished.

    “You only stay at hospital when you need nursing care not PT only.”

    Well, she’s almost 90, so I would imagine she needs nursing care. And you’re supposed to stay in the hospital until you’re better. Simply inserting a man made ball and socket joint does not make for a well person.

    “Where I live in you need PT after surgery then you go home or to a SNF as matter of standard practice.”

    Right, and her access to therapy has been cut off because the insurance company decided she was no longer making progress. She still needs therapy, that’s what her doctor said. Apparently, the doctors told this to her insurance company, and that hasn’t swayed their decision. If she had been deemed to be making progress (and I have no idea how they quantify such things), she would still be there, getting the care she needs. The whole situation has left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, and who knows how long she’ll be gone tending to her grandmother?

  33. “Guns were invented as a weapon of war”

    Thank you for proving me right. Automobiles were not invented as weapons of war. Just stop trying to compare the two and you’ll do just fine.

    Robert, anything whether it is designed to kill or maim, can be used to kill or maim. This is not the fault of the inanimate object but the fault of user. If I have a gun and a criminal has a gun, who is more likely to create a problem? – AndyB.

    “Guns were not invented so people can commit cold blooded murder”

    Guns were created with the sole purpose of causing as much destruction as possible. Cars were not. Are we clear?

    If that were true why do the militaries of the world use less effective fully jacketed ammunition? Shouldn’t they be using frangible or explosive rounds tipped with poison and nerve gas? What about dynamite and other explosives without which you’d have a devil of a time building roads but they are also used in war? It all comes down to the intent of the user and the ability of others to defend themselves from that user if his/her intent is evil.
    And as far as I can tell from Gore and his global warming buddies, including the U.N. cars cause considerably more damage than firearms;-)
    AndyB, NH

  34. “And as far as I can tell from Gore and his global warming buddies, including the U.N. cars cause considerably more damage than firearms;-)”

    They were not CREATED to do so. Why is everyone having so much trouble with this fact? No one disputes that cars can be used in an irresponsible manner that may result in the deaths of others. But cars were invented as a means of transportation. Guns were created to destroy things. Why this has caused so much hysteria is a mystery to me…

  35. “In Canada, it can take a month to see a doctor when you get sick.”

    That is a blatant lie. Phony stories are abound by lunatics like Glenn Beck, but the minister of health for the entire country has contradicted you loons time and time again. True, you don’t go to the top of the pile for a hangnail, but you’re seen in a timely manner. When it’s a direct affect on your health, you’re seen. That is a fact.

    Robert, if someone claimed Madoff was running a ponzi scheme and Madoff “proved” he didn’t by saying he didn’t, does that make it so? And it’s not like the health minister’s job doesn’t depend on him defending a failing system. Many in Canada do not have an assigned doctor which makes getting medical care under their “free” system even more difficult. Also, haven’t I heard that it is better to take care of the little problems before they become big problems (preventative healthcare)? If you have to wait a month for a small problem and it becomes a big problem because of the wait, doesn’t it cost the gov’t and ultimately the people who fund the gov’t care more? The long waits are partly because of a shortage of medical workers (why work for the gov’t if you can work for a private clinic or work in the US?) and because of gov’t inefficiencies.
    People seem to think it is unfair that people with more money can afford better and faster medical care. Doesn’t mean they’ll live longer but everything seems to come down to punishing successful people.
    I don’t know, I have a job, I pay for insurance and it does a pretty good job of keeping the costs down for my insulin and pump supplies and that helps keep me healthier. I’d love free stuff but it will never be free. It will cost me one way or another, in the end.
    AndyB, NH.

  36. “And as far as I can tell from Gore and his global warming buddies, including the U.N. cars cause considerably more damage than firearms;-)”

    They were not CREATED to do so. Why is everyone having so much trouble with this fact? No one disputes that cars can be used in an irresponsible manner that may result in the deaths of others. But cars were invented as a means of transportation. Guns were created to destroy things. Why this has caused so much hysteria is a mystery to me…

    Robert, I ask myself the same question. Why the hysteria? I have known people who have carried concealed for 30+ years and never committed a crime or killed anyone or even been involved in fights! You assume that someone carrying a gun will make some Jekyll & Hyde transformation into a blood thirsty killer? Doesn’t happen.
    What if someone used a gun to protect your life? I imagine you’d have them arrested for daring to use such a “weapon of war” even if it was for a good cause (and I think saving your life would count as a good cause). Guns are one tool in many that protect us in this country and others every single day. If someone commits a crime they should be punished but at the end of the day, it is the actions and moral fiber (or lack thereof) of human beings with or without weapons that is the issue.
    I guess if people are the problem, we should simply get rid of people and then the world will be at peace. Except for the animals fighting over and defending their territory and of course they’ll be killing and eating other animals. Hmm. Better just get rid of the world. Problem solved!
    AndyB, NH;-)

  37. “Robert, if someone claimed Madoff was running a ponzi scheme and Madoff “proved” he didn’t by saying he didn’t, does that make it so? And it’s not like the health minister’s job doesn’t depend on him defending a failing system.”

    Oh, I see. When someone else says it, it’s false, but when you do it, we should all accept it as gospel? That has to be the most specious argument I have ever heard. Why don’t you take a look at the polls, the overwhelming majority of Canadians love their health care system. Same goes for the UK, somewhere around 92% are satisfied with it. How you can label it a failure in spite of that is telling.

    “The long waits are partly because of a shortage of medical workers (why work for the gov’t if you can work for a private clinic or work in the US?) and because of gov’t inefficiencies.”

    What government inefficiencies? Government has no say whatsoever in how care is administered or who gets it in Canada. And there are no wait times for urgent primary care. There are wait times for elective surgery, but that is common sense. And as far as “shortages” go, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S., so to make this type of claim is completely spurious.

    “Doesn’t mean they’ll live longer but everything seems to come down to punishing successful people.”

    This line is so hackneyed and not at all rooted in reality. No one is seeking to punish anyone, and by you using that argument just shows me that you really have no merit to stand on. A society should be just that – a society. We are not, as Ayn Rand suggested, a loose collective of individuals. If we were, we’d be left to fend for ourselves in times of war (which may not have been a bad thing given the cons’ defense of the Iraq debacle). It should never be seen as punishment when we pick each other up when we see one fall. This is sadly a lesson that most cons can’t seem to understand.

    “I’d love free stuff but it will never be free. It will cost me one way or another, in the end.”

    And no one is asking for free anything, just reasonable price control. And when premiums go up faster than wages, you’ve got a real problem on your hands…

  38. “You assume that someone carrying a gun will make some Jekyll & Hyde transformation into a blood thirsty killer? “

    No, and I never argued that. My point is that common sense dictates that guns should not be brought to a protest where the president is speaking. Like I said before, only an asshole would do something like that. It’s also perfectly legal to bring a gun to a baby shower or a toddler’s birthday party, but common sense would hopefully prevent most people from doing stupid shit like that.

    “What if someone used a gun to protect your life? I imagine you’d have them arrested for daring to use such a “weapon of war” even if it was for a good cause (and I think saving your life would count as a good cause).”

    Please refrain from making idiotic arguments. No one here is arguing for abolishing police departments or denying the fact that guns are often used for protection. I have never, nor will I ever advocate for banning of guns. If we could just stick to the issue of why these jackasses seem to think it’s appropriate to bring a gun to what should be a civil debate, that would be awesome.

    “I guess if people are the problem, we should simply get rid of people and then the world will be at peace.”

    See above.

  39. Robert, I lost two friends to the Iraq war and several others were badly injured; they’ll be seeing VA doctors for the rest of their lives. My little brother has fought in that war as did several of my cousins. Each and every one of them believed in their mission, and your continued “one million killed” tripe is COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT.

    “So, the Lancet is funded by George Soros?”

    Yes, Robert, and it’s been proven:

    http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

    4.5 million refugees? Really? And which country is taking them in? Yes, there have been some, there always are in war. But that figure was grossly overblown. You’re getting into very personal territory here, pal, and it pisses me off. Try reading this one, too:

    http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,322417,00.html

    Oh, and those “studies” done by the Center for Public Integrity that purported to show that Bush lied to get us into Iraq? Also bullshit. CPI is directly funded by George Soros. It is hardly a non-profit journalism group. I hate to break this to ya but the claims that Bush lied to get us into Iraq came straight from CPI.

    “Don’t you dare cop a righteous attitude because you can’t face the realities of a war caused by your bullshit ideology.”

    I’ve told you the exact same thing. You come out here and spout all this shit as though it’s fact, but you fail–EVERY SINGLE TIME–to back up your claims with evidence. Then, when I ask you for evidence, you bitch about not wanting to go and look for it. You have the temerity to tell ME to go look for it! I have, Robert, and what I see is a slew of lies. ALL OF IT. And it’s created with money flowing from uber-liberals like Soros who have a specific agenda.

    “You know goddamn well if a Democrat showed up with a visible weapon to one of W.’s events, you’d have screamed bloody murder.”

    You’re full of shit. As long as they were obeying the law, I wouldn’t have had a problem with it. But everyone here knows full well that it never would have happened because Democrats are too scared of guns to even think of doing such a thing.

    “How comfortable would you feel around someone who’s mentally unstable enough to carry a sign that denotes a threat while simultaneously packing a pistol?”

    If someone is holding a pistol and making threats, guess what? He’s breaking the law. Without a weapon it’s called threatening and intimidation. WITH a weapon it’s assault with intent. You don’t have a clue what we want, do you?

    “That is a blatant lie. Phony stories are abound by lunatics like Glenn Beck, but the minister of health for the entire country has contradicted you loons time and time again.”

    I don’t actually watch Beck often, but thanks for playing. I got that figure from several friends who used to live in Canada. Talk to a few Canadians here in the States now instead of believing Canadian politicians, who will lie if the truth will do them better. I don’t want to hear government claims, Robert, I want evidence–numbers, personal experience, that sort of thing. The kind of evidence that ISN’T contrived.

    “They were not CREATED to do so. Why is everyone having so much trouble with this fact?”

    So the hell what, Robert? Yes, they were created to kill–so was the bow and arrow. Firearms were simply the next step in the evolution of weapons. Martial arts came about as a means of causing harm, does that mean I’m wrong for diligently practicing it? Here’s a story you won’t hear from the MSM about the GOOD that guns do:

    http://www.wistv.com/global/story.asp?s=5942137

  40. “Well, she’s almost 90, so I would imagine she needs nursing care. ”

    Almost 90? Why was this surgery performed? That’s insane. She’s too old for it.

  41. “So the hell what, Robert? Yes, they were created to kill–so was the bow and arrow. Firearms were simply the next step in the evolution of weapons. ”

    Anti gun people like Robert live in this fantasy world where we all will stop gun killing each other when guns are banned.

    Those of us who understand human nature understand two concrete axioms:

    1. People tend to choose the path of least resistance. Shooting someone is easier than beating someone to death. Whne the gun path is gone, the next easiest path will be used.

    2. If you are bound and determined to do something, then you will try to find a way to do it and you’ll probably succeed.

  42. “Each and every one of them believed in their mission, and your continued “one million killed” tripe is COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT.”

    Again, just because you believe it is, doesn’t make it so.

    “Yes, Robert, and it’s been proven:”

    Your link doesn’t work, but I can see from the URL that it’s from the National Journal. The fact that you put forth some drivel from a right wing blog owned by a self described “neocon guy” who was “dead certain about the rightness” of invading Iraq is absolutely laughable. But let’s just, for one second, give you the benefit of the doubt and say this was all a plot concocted by Goerge Soros to make Bush look bad. Let’s say it’s true. Is he also somehow responsible for similar findings by Johns Hopkins, by the IBC (which Bush has used death toll numbers from), the UN, and the World Health Organization? They’re all wrong, and your little right wing blog is correct, is that it? Everyone’s wrong except the one source you rely on? How you ever expect to be taken seriously is beyond me.

    “4.5 million refugees? Really? And which country is taking them in?”

    The neighboring ones. Syria, Jordan. Perhaps Iran. They went wherever they weren’t being shot at is my guess.

    “But that figure was grossly overblown”

    Take it up with the United Nations

    “You’re getting into very personal territory here, pal, and it pisses me off”

    Ooh, scary. What’s there to get pissed off at? I am presenting my opinion, which is based on several reputable organizations’ findings (George Soros aside). If the truth pisses you off, I’m not the problem here, reality is.

    “Oh, and those “studies” done by the Center for Public Integrity that purported to show that Bush lied to get us into Iraq? Also bullshit.”

    Reality’s a big liar too, huh? Show me some truth. Find me another right wing blog that can possibly spin what my own eyes and ears told me. Find me all the VX and mustard gas that wasn’t degraded to the point of being, and I quote, “less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point”. Show me the nookular facilities. Show me the anthrax. You’re grasping at straws, and it’s not pretty. You’re like seven years too late trying to defend this shit, when every reputable source, the media, the UN, The IAEA, your own party, 75% of the country, and reality has proven to be false. Either admit what the entire world knows to be farce, or let it go. You will never convince anyone but yourself that the invasion of Iraq was legitimate and necessary. There was no threat, immediate or otherwise, to us, there were no weapons that had the remotest of possibilities of reaching us or any of our interests (all they had were a few Al Somoud missiles that went 15 miles farther than permitted). This is all repetitive. We’ve already been through this. I’ve listed what “WMDs” were found in Iraq, and they were already declared by Hussein. We’ve heard the weapons inspectors from every available agency tell us there was nothing. All of this, and you still refuse to see it for what it was – a lie. Hey, I guess you can claim they weren’t lies if Bush believed them. Yeah, go with that, it’s the only defense that can’t be disproved…

    “I hate to break this to ya but the claims that Bush lied to get us into Iraq came straight from CPI.”

    No, the claims that Bush lied to get us into Iraq came straight from Bush. Nothing he said turned out to be true. In the real world, we call those lies.

    “I’ve told you the exact same thing. You come out here and spout all this shit as though it’s fact, but you fail–EVERY SINGLE TIME–to back up your claims with evidence.”

    Yeah, this seems to be a theme with you, and I’ve come up with a formula for how it goes:

    Step 1: Present facts
    Step 2: Mel denies facts
    Step 3: Present more facts
    Step 4: Mel doesn’t like your source, so it’s not true
    Step 5: Robert grows tired of “having a debate with a dining room table”
    Repeat.

    “Then, when I ask you for evidence, you bitch about not wanting to go and look for it.”

    You asked me for minutes from a meeting, because apparently newspaper articles laced with quotes from those involved aren’t proof enough. Congressional testimony from the parties privy to pertinent information is also not enough. The fact that real people lodged formal complaints doesn’t matter. Likewise, disproportionate numbers of people who were affected by something you refuse to acknowledge is somehow a lack of evidence. Of course there’s no evidence if you choose not to see it. You know, if I close my eyes hard enough, OJ didn’t do it. There was more than enough evidence to present to a normal person. That was a bullshit request and you know it. If you’re so concerned with the minutia, go and get it yourself. I don’t see the point in spending hours digging up something that you’ll just summarily dismiss because you found a typo…

    “And it’s created with money flowing from uber-liberals like Soros who have a specific agenda.”

    Ah, but Climate Change deniers funded by Exxon-Mobil are to be taken at their word. I see. And what about the slew of evidence that Soros never touched? How can you honestly expect to refute the United Nations and the World Health Organization? Knock yourself out, I’d love to see you try…

    “You’re full of shit. As long as they were obeying the law, I wouldn’t have had a problem with it.”

    You just found a reason to complain about a French T-shirt and other forms of exercising first amendment rights. There was a big problem with those legal activities. Yeah, and I’m full of shit…

    “But everyone here knows full well that it never would have happened because Democrats are too scared of guns to even think of doing such a thing.”

    You just inadvertently admitted that all criminals are republicans…

    “Talk to a few Canadians here in the States now instead of believing Canadian politicians, who will lie if the truth will do them better. I don’t want to hear government claims, Robert, I want evidence–numbers, personal experience, that sort of thing. The kind of evidence that ISN’T contrived.”

    You’re right, it’s not:

    http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2009/08/never-mind-the-anecdotes-do-canadians-like-their-health-care-system.html

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/72229.html

    Go ahead and tell me Canadians are stupid and wrong for liking their system just the way it is. And when that doesn’t work, perhaps you’d like to impugn McClatchy, whose bureau chief has won awards for journalistic independence. Tell me how liberal they are, I dare you.

    And, in case you felt like bashing the British again:

    http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/08/14/british_nhs/index.html

    Although I suppose that was probably pointless. You’ll never believe any of it anyway because it doesn’t support your opinion. But perhaps you should ask yourself this question: if we have it so good, and the rest of the world is wrong, why isn’t every other country on earth clamoring to have our system? Answer that and I suspect it will put an end to the so called debate going on now…

    “Here’s a story you won’t hear from the MSM about the GOOD that guns do:”

    No one has ever denied that guns can be used for good. Of fucking course they can be, that’s presumably why we have police forces. The only reason I mentioned anything about the invention of the gun in the first place is because some jackass tried to conflate misusing a gun with misusing a car. I merely pointed out that it’s not a misuse of a gun to kill someone because that’s what they were created to do. I have no problem with the concept of gun ownership. I myself do not own one, nor do I understand the desire to own one. But, different strokes. I don’t know anyone besides my brother that understands my penchant for collecting wrist watches. Most people think it’s odd that I have 35 of them. Whatever, to each their own. The only point of contention I have with gun ownership is how easily they can be obtained, and how rigid people can be when it comes to determining people’s mental fitness in regards to gun ownership. I don’t want to ban guns, or take them away from lonely rednecks. I don’t care if you have one gun or ten guns. I have several friends who own guns. It doesn’t concern me that any of them have them. That’s my stance on guns. Let it be known, so that next time some simpleton like John accuses me of wanting to strip you of your precious guns, which have been hilariously referred to by Tracy Morgan as “metal penises”…

  43. “You assume that someone carrying a gun will make some Jekyll & Hyde transformation into a blood thirsty killer? “

    No, and I never argued that. My point is that common sense dictates that guns should not be brought to a protest where the president is speaking. Like I said before, only an asshole would do something like that. It’s also perfectly legal to bring a gun to a baby shower or a toddler’s birthday party, but common sense would hopefully prevent most people from doing stupid shit like that.

    Okay, sadly, it is not against the law to be an a-hole. And if someone is a law abiding citizen, has a CCW, what is the harm in attending a baby shower or birthday party? Are baby showers immune from crime and violence? No. My issue is with open carry as all that does is tell bad guys who is armed and excite or frighten other people.
    BTW, I assumed you wanted to ban guns/hated guns from the way you described them. How many groups claim they don’t want to ban guns but only the “bad” ones or the “military looking” ones or the “evil” ones? My bad for assuming you wanted to ban guns. Sorry.
    Also, in the other part of my post (that ended with “getting rid of people” bit) I now see I failed to add a “;-)” to communicate I was writing this tongue in cheek. I forget humor over the internet cannot always be accurately conveyed.
    AndyB, NH.

  44. “Well, she’s almost 90, so I would imagine she needs nursing care. ”

    Almost 90? Why was this surgery performed? That’s insane. She’s too old for it.

    John,
    I know a gentleman who had surgery to remove an intestinal blockage at the age of 88. He was in better shape than many people 20 years younger. He is 92 now and still in good health with the exception of brain bleeds (hospital gave him double the blood thinner he should have had) and difficulty in his chest and stomach muscles (because they were not put back properly because the doctor “figured he wouldn’t survive!”).
    I feel whether it is insurance companies or the government making decisions, the individual’s specific situation (not sure that is the right word) need to be taken into consideration. That is why I would prefer health decisions being between the patient and the medical personnel who are most familiar with all the facts.
    I’m not disagreeing because most 90 year olds are probably not in good enough shape to be able to recover well from such an operation (but I’d weant it if I were 90 years old!).
    AndyB, NH.

  45. “Your link doesn’t work, but I can see from the URL that it’s from the National Journal. The fact that you put forth some drivel from a right wing blog owned by a self described “neocon guy” who was “dead certain about the rightness” of invading Iraq is absolutely laughable.”

    I can’t believe I actually have to answer this. The National Journal? “Drivel from a right wing blog” written by a “neocon”? You cannot be serious. Robert, the National Journal was first and foremost a magazine, and every politician, staffer, intern and MSM talking head reads it. They have for quite some time. It is one of the few publications I subscribe to. Their op-ed writers are from a good spread of political ideals, that’s why I like them. They also print THE FACTS, not a watered-down version of the news that we get from every other channel on the air. When a gunman shot and killed three fellow students and wounded three others at the Appalachian School of Law, the MSM was all over it, especially how he was stopped by three other students. What you didn’t hear from the MSM was that two of those students that held the gunman did so with their own guns. It actually took several months for that part of the story to come out, and the National Journal was one of the first major publications to report those facts.

    You just don’t like anything that’s not bleeding-heart liberal, which is exactly what the LA Times and the Chicago Tribune are. And please, don’t give me links to op-ed pieces and say that it’s “proof.” Their opinion is no more proof than mine is; at least when I talk about something, if I provide a link to evidence it’s not based on someone else’s opinion.

    “Step 1: Present facts”

    That’s funny, because all you’ve presented are OPINIONS. That’s not fact, Robert. Try again.

    “Step 2: Mel denies facts”

    Um…no. Mel simply disagrees with opinions. Hilarious.

    “Step 3: Present more facts”

    Really? Where?

    “Step 4: Mel doesn’t like your source, so it’s not true”

    BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Waitaminit…here are YOUR exact words about evidence that I presented:

    “Show me some truth. Find me another right wing blog that can possibly spin what my own eyes and ears told me.”

    That’s okay, Robert. It’s alright for YOU to provide op-ed pieces and present them as “evidence” and then complain that you don’t want to find links to verifiable evidence instead of just spewing numbers. I give links to studies which were NOT written on right-wing blogs and you dismiss them offhand while telling me if I want evidence of what you’re saying, I should be the one going to look for it.

    How do you think WE can take YOU seriously?

  46. “The National Journal? “Drivel from a right wing blog” written by a “neocon”? You cannot be serious.”

    David Bradley, who bought Atlantic Media (who owns the National Journal) in 1997, said so himself. So I am quite serious. If you can call George Soro’s influence into question, I can damn sure point it out on your side.

    “You just don’t like anything that’s not bleeding-heart liberal”

    If that’s your argument, then you are a hypocrite. How am I any different from you? You don’t like anything that isn’t staunchly conservative. You’ve already admitted that it’s your opinion that FOX News isn’t the slightest bit biased and that they’re fair. How you can believe that and accuse me of that which you are guilty of should negate any such arguments in the future. But I won’t hold my breath.

    “And please, don’t give me links to op-ed pieces and say that it’s “proof.”

    One could say the same to you.

    “at least when I talk about something, if I provide a link to evidence it’s not based on someone else’s opinion.”

    The National Journal link you posted was just that. Please don’t pretend that you’re providing solid evidence, because if that were the case, you and a handful of people are the only ones privy to such “facts”

    “That’s funny, because all you’ve presented are OPINIONS. That’s not fact, Robert”

    So that link I provided that reprinted a story that appeared in a newspaper – VERBATIM – was an opinion piece? The writer sat in the courtroom and put quotation marks around their own opinions and credited them to officials who worked for the company and congressmen? Give me a break, Mel. You’re reaching, pure and simple.

    “Um…no. Mel simply disagrees with opinions”

    And apparently facts.

    “Really? Where?”

    See my remark in my previous comment about one Mr. Simpson. You should really be a lawyer…

    “here are YOUR exact words about evidence that I presented:”

    Let me clue in on how evidence works, Mel. To point to George Soros and hope that your readers draw some sinister inference is NOT evidence. Also, scratch that last remark advising you to be a lawyer. Any case you’d try to put on would be laughed out of court. If your op-ed is fact, so is the film “Loose Change”. Sound like a fair trade?

    “That’s okay, Robert. It’s alright for YOU to provide op-ed pieces and present them as “evidence” and then complain that you don’t want to find links to verifiable evidence instead of just spewing numbers.”

    And it’s also okay to for you to parade yourself around as having a shred of credibility after piles of evidence are staring you in the face while simultaneously crying for all to ‘pay plenty of attention to the George Soros behind the curtain’. And you still have yet to attempt to “debunk” similar numbers from the UN and the WHO. I suspect you’re not THAT foolish…

    “How do you think WE can take YOU seriously?”

    You don’t have to. You are a part of a tiny minority that believes the fantasy that you do. Public opinion heavily favors the opinions I have and the facts that I have based them on. You, on the other hand, have the 20 or so percent that represent the lunatic fringe. So, I’m done trying to convince you, because frankly, swaying the lunatic fringe is not a challenge I’m up to…

  47. “You’ve already admitted that it’s your opinion that FOX News isn’t the slightest bit biased and that they’re fair.”

    That’s not a conservative slant, that is merely a fact. In all of our exchanges, you never could credibly point out Keith Olbermann having the same amount of adverse guests on his shows as Hannity or O’Reilly ever did.

    Fox News is the ONLY network that does not censor the conservative voice. THAT is why it is number one. It’s amazing to me that liberals will try and make one believe that conservatism is dying and yet, conservative books are now at the top of the NY Times Bestseller list, Fox is number one in cable news viewers (combined show viewers), and talk radio is only successful with regard to conservative hosts like Limbaugh and Levin.

    All of these people invite liberals on to argue. Granted, liberals are never that bright when they do call in.

    In the end, our logic is correct. Americans have rights to defend themselves as was proven by the Supreme Court when they lifted the gun ban in DC. Those words are actually there, unlike the entire Constitution where the words “abortion” or “teminating a pregnancy” still fails to exist.

    Deciding to enforce the craziest gun laws will only leave the decent folks with no defense and it WILL NOT STOP the criminals from getting them. Never. Never. Never. No link you can provide can betray that common sense.

  48. “In all of our exchanges, you never could credibly point out Keith Olbermann having the same amount of adverse guests on his shows as Hannity or O’Reilly ever did.”

    Nor have I ever claimed that Olbermann doesn’t have a bias. The fact that you can pretend that FOX isn’t biased is absolutely incredible. Just take something like this for example:

    http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908230016

    “Fox News is the ONLY network that does not censor the conservative voice.”

    What a ridiculous notion. Still pushing the tired old “liberal media” myth, eh?:

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908210035

    “It’s amazing to me that liberals will try and make one believe that conservatism is dying and yet, conservative books are now at the top of the NY Times Bestseller list, Fox is number one in cable news viewers”

    Equally amazing is the fact that, despite losing election after election, people like you still manage to regurgitate the talking point of ‘this is a center right country’. It’s the damnedest thing…

    “All of these people invite liberals on to argue.”

    Uh, what? Rush Limbaugh invites liberals onto his show? Really? This is news…

    “Granted, liberals are never that bright when they do call in.”

    That’s because they don’t call in, because conservative talk radio uses call screeners as a shield, denying any liberal a chance to get on one of those shows. The only time they get on is when they lie and pretend to espouse the same inhuman positions. And if, by some miracle, they do get on, you get meatheads like Bill O’Reilly cutting people’s mics when they inevitably lose an argument, or they hang up on you and politely request that you get AIDS and die, like Michael Savage (nee, Weiner). Progressive talk, on the other hand, puts conservatives at the top of the phone queue. Go figure…

    “In the end, our logic is correct.”

    The crazies always believe everyone else is crazy right along with them…

    “Those words are actually there, unlike the entire Constitution where the words “abortion” or “teminating a pregnancy” still fails to exist.”

    The right to privacy is certainly in there, there’s no denying that…

    “Deciding to enforce the craziest gun laws will only leave the decent folks with no defense and it WILL NOT STOP the criminals from getting them. Never. Never. Never.”

    If you could only apply that same logic to abortion, you’d be a little less crazy. The only difference is, I don’t advocate for banning guns because I realize that this logic you’ve used is absolutely correct. If only you’d meet me halfway and come to an equally logical conclusion on that other topic.

  49. “Carrying a gun is most certainly a privilege. Hence, the ability of said privilege to be stripped. Felons can’t own guns. Likewise, people with diminished capacity can’t own them.”

    No it’s a Right, hence the Second Amendment is part of something called the “Bill of Rights”, not the “Bill of Privileges”, it’s called that for a reason. And yes your Rights can be stripped of you but only after you have been found guilty by a jury of your peers during a trial and only in the event that your crime warrants the stripping of your Rights or in the case that it can be proven that you are insane or mentally retarded and therefore would be a danger to others when exercising the Rights in the Constitution.

    Free speech, a trial by a jury, guns and not having troops quartered in your home are Rights, a drivers license is a privilege. in order to say otherwise you have to completely ignore the entire ideology, concepts and history behind the US Constitution.

  50. So, it turns out this nut that brought the AR-15 to the speaking engagement of the President is a bigger nut than anyone thought. First I find out that the aforementioned stunt was just that – a stunt; one perpetrated by local libertarian radio host/failed office seeker Ernie Hancock. I’ve been friends with Ernie’s son for several years, and have had many conversations with the man (Ernie) back when he was producer for the Charles Goyette radio show here in Phoenix. He’s always struck me as a well intentioned person, but largely ignorant on the nuts and bolts of things. The last time I was in his home, he gave me several copies of the film ‘Loose Change’, if that tells you what kind of thinking sways his views. But this stunt was a little over the top. Apparently it was coordinated in the hopes of generating web traffic to his radio show’s site. I emailed his son, asking what the hell is wrong with his dad. I’m still waiting for a response.

    Now to the fun stuff. I would never expect this type of content to show up on this page, lest it make conservatives look crazy. Apparently, this Christopher Broughton fellow attends a very interesting church in Tempe, called Faithful Word. If you know where I’m going with this, good; get comfortable. This guy’s pastor makes Jeremiah Wright look like the Pope. According to Steven Anderson himself, he would like to see Obama “die of brain cancer, like Ted Kennedy”. Have a look:

    I have no doubt that this is why so many people hate Christians. It’s assholes like this that make the rest of us look bad. And notice, if you will, that Broughton agrees with his nutcase pastor’s sentiments, and wishes for the President’s death. My guess is that no one here will make a fuss over this because the guy’s just exercising his first amendment rights, although I hope I am wrong.

    I think it goes without saying that this type of speech, this hate speech, is despicable in and of itself, but to spew this excrement from a pulpit is beyond wrong. As much as I despised the person George Bush chose to be, I never once prayed for his death. Truth be told, I prayed for his safety once or twice. Wishing death upon someone, especially by way of a brain tumor is absolutely repugnant. Literally praying to God for that death is about as unforgivable an action one can make. It takes everything that my Lord and savior stood for and preached, and spits upon it. Earlier this month, a post was made here condemning radio host Mike Malloy’s calls for Glenn Beck’s suicide, and rightly so. I hope the members of this online community will do no less for these two men, and join me in condemning their hateful words.

  51. Unfortunately, I know quite well who Steve Anderson is. I’ve blogged about his antics before. He’s the (expletive deleted) who cried foul after he harrassed several Border Patrol agents and Arizona DPS officers. I don’t have to look at any of his videos; I know perfectly well who and what he is and I can quote his teachings much as I can those of Fred Phelps.

    However, that does not mean I’m swayed about the gun issue. The guy carrying the gun may be lacking in the area of intelligence, but he still has a right to carry in the open.

    And I would think having your eyes opened to this would make you want to just ignore the guy, Robert, lest you give him exactly what he was really after.

  52. “And I would think having your eyes opened to this would make you want to just ignore the guy, Robert, lest you give him exactly what he was really after.”

    You know, someone else posted something similar to that on YouTube, saying that the story getting coverage is feeding the guy’s desire for attention. It’s just hard to ignore something so over the top like that. I would probably have ignored him if he weren’t in the position he is in. It just really irks me when supposed people of God act in such an un-Godly manner, and display actions that are directly opposed to the things they’re supposed to be teaching. My pastor is more than my pastor; he’s my friend, my confidant, and my spiritual advisor. If he ever said something like that, he’d get an earful from me, and I don’t know if I’d ever be able to step foot in his church again…

  53. “You know, someone else posted something similar to that on YouTube, saying that the story getting coverage is feeding the guy’s desire for attention. It’s just hard to ignore something so over the top like that. ”

    It may not be wise to ignore it either. Adolph Hitler did not start out with crowds of thousands when he spoke about his political views. He worked his way up.

    In the beginning of his run he was ignored and people (including Jewish folk) decided the best thing to do about the Nazi’s was ignore them. They were too small, too obscure, and would never gain any sort of real following. How wrong people were.

    Now this nutty preacher who prays for brain cancer may not grow into a full blown dictator. But, he does need to be called out on what he says no matter how obscure he is. As the saying goes the Devil does his best work when he convinces people he does not exist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s