I've seen a number of good posts responding to Megan's guns-at-protests thing. One of the best comes from Thomas Levenson, and it begins as follows.

Another Reason Why My Doctor Tells Me The Nation Shouldn’t Read Megan McArdle…

…the necessary blood pressure medication on its own would bankrupt our soon-to-be-reformed health care system.

Though perhaps, pieces like this actually evoke more of a sense of wonder than anything else — not merely at the banality and evil so neatly conjoined in its content, but at the astonishing reality that anyone who routinely writes such…how to put this…bonecrushingly stupid; water-her-twice-a day dumb;* the wheel is spinning but the hamster’s dead** material, still has a job, much less an apparently appreciative audience.***

Actually, I think I have to credit McArdle with some cleverness here. Her post is so full of different instances of nonsense, bad faith argument, sheer failure to understand what she seems to think she is talking about that she achieves a certain effect: by seeding her post with so much to be debunked, she increases the odds that one whack-a-mole notion or another will slip past the defenses of rationality and

Thomas Levenson dismantles McArdle. (via)

It's too bad, I like Michelle Goldberg, but there's no way I'm listening to another McArdle episode ever again. If MG has any good bits can somebody dingalink 'em? Thanks.

It's always amusing to hear how upset liberals get when they are reminded that the right to bear arms exists. The way MSNBC dealt with the black fellow who showed up armed (by trimming the photo to avoid revealing his race) then announcing that white racists were coming to the Townhall meetings armed says it all. Bussing in hired union stooges and campaign workers to ask setup questions at townhalls - OK Asking representatives to read the bill and exercising your individual rights - Racist hatred When the facts don't fit the meme, trim the facts. It's worth noting that when I was in the 6th grade I was allowed to carry my .22 rifle on the school bus for after-school hunter safety classes. But then back then prayer was still allowed in schools and values were taught instead of today's moral equivilance for everything under the sun. Change You Can Believe In

Quoting TwinSwords: I haven't watched the diavlog yet, and won't be able to until tomorrow evening at the earliest. But I have a sneaking suspicion that Megan McArdle knows nothing about the militant, ultraconservative political views of the extremists who are bringing guns to presidential events.

So, I just picked a spot at random, and unless this is a misleading dingalink, it appears, sure enough, that Ms. Megan is completely unaware of the political viewpoints held by the militant extremists bringing weapons to these events. Again, I need to watch the whole diavlog to be sure, but this clip, especially her question at 44:07, strongly suggests she doesn't know the first thing about these militant conservatives or the extreme positions they espouse. Why do I know more about militant conservatism than one of the Atlantic's most famous writers? For that matter, why do I know more about the topic Megan writes about than she does? If I was a professional writer, I might try to stick to topics I had an understanding of.

Quoting harkin: It's always amusing to hear how upset liberals get when they are reminded that the right to bear arms exists.

You and these other violent hicks who bring guns to rallies are doing a better job of arguing against the second amendment than liberals ever could. If you had asked me a year ago I would have told you that Dems wouldn't ever pursue gun control again, and that I was happy about it. Every day now it becomes more and more clear that we're going to face a choice between respecting the right to bear arms and respecting the people's right to choose their own politicians and I know where I stand.

Megan asks Michelle whether she thinks there's a 1 in 10 chance that someone will get shot at an event in the near future. Megan misses the point. The targets are not other citizens at these events. The target is the president, specifically, and the United States government, more generally. The weapons are being brought as a direct threat to the US government, and to incite/encourage others to show up with weapons at future events. And it will work: Republicans showing up with weapons wherever Obama appears will now be a permanent feature of his presidency. For as long as Obama is in office, right wing extremists will follow him around the country with arms. The question is: how bad will it get? The militants' hope is that what starts with 1 man in New Hampshire and then a dozen in Arizona will become 100 the following month and 1000 six months after that. Republican militants are in a building/recruiting phase, and they are trying to provoke the government into taking some kind of action that would unleash (their word) revolution. Their model for action is Lexington and Concord, when British attempts to disarm Colonial patriots led

Quoting TwinSwords: Why do I know more about militant conservatism than one of the Atlantic's most famous writers? For that matter, why do I know more about the topic Megan writes about than she does? If I was a professional writer, I might try to stick to topics I had an understanding of.

Her writing on economics is just as bad.

Long time viewer, first time poster, finally compelled to pipe up due to the sheer hypocrisy and demagoguery of Michelle Goldberg, which I tolerated for 82 minutes for reasons passing understanding. The amount of nerve required for ANYONE on the left to whine and complain about a toxic and potentially dangerous political climate deriving from irrational and visceral hatred of those in power is really beyond me. The amount of unhinged vitriol directed at Bush was at such a high level and so mainstream, people didn't even bat an eyelash at it, Keith Olbermann created a cottage industry out of it. Whatever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism, anyways? People kept talking about the possibility of Obama being assassinated after the election, and this is slightly less useful in retrospect, but it would seem to me entirely more likely for Bush to be assassinated than Obama. It's also unclear to me to the extent that these protesters are even "right wing" anyways, unless we're placing everyone the left doesn't like neatly into a box. Simply because some may like guns, or oppose a national health care system, two

Quoting TwinSwords: Thomas Levenson dismantles McArdle.

(via)

Jinx! Same post times and everything.

Quoting pampl: You and these other violent hicks who bring guns to rallies are doing a better job of arguing against the second amendment than liberals ever could. If you had asked me a year ago I would have told you that Dems wouldn't ever pursue gun control again, and that I was happy about it. Every day now it becomes more and more clear that we're going to face a choice between respecting the right to bear arms and respecting the people's right to choose their own politicians and I know where I stand.

Exactly right. It's worth reminding harkin of the words of Thomas Harris, whom I quoted earlier:

Look at this crowd: scruffy, squinty, angry, egg-bound, truly of the resinous heart. They are the main danger to the right of a private citizen to own a firearm.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Long time viewer, first time poster, finally compelled to pipe up due to the sheer hypocrisy and demagoguery of Michelle Goldberg, which I tolerated for 82 minutes for reasons passing understanding. The amount of nerve required for ANYONE on the left to whine and complain about a toxic and potentially dangerous political climate deriving from irrational and visceral hatred of those in power is really beyond me. The amount of unhinged vitriol directed at Bush was at such a high level and so mainstream, people didn't even bat an eyelash at it, Keith Olbermann created a cottage industry out of it. Whatever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism, anyways?

People kept talking about the possibility of Obama being assassinated after the election, and this is slightly less useful in retrospect, but it would seem to me entirely more likely for Bush to be assassinated than Obama.

It's also unclear to me to the extent that these protesters are even "right wing" anyways, unless we're placing everyone the left doesn't like neatly into a box. Simply because some may like guns, or oppose a national health care system, two

The only violence right-wing protesters and their spokesmen want to provoke is that of the state.
Just like with other non-violent demonstrations, the protesters win when state overreacts. Had the police, for example, seized the weapons of law-abiding citizens, their movement would feed off of the moral outrage that would have ensued. That didn't happen, so good for the police. On the other hand, what did happen was members of Obama's administration orchestrating campaign to silence the media critical of their policies. The White House's blatant disregard for the Constitution of this land is what allows right wingers to justly claim higher moral ground, so good for them. I hope my analysis calms down our friend TwinSwords who sounds like he hasn’t had a good night’s sleep for weeks.

Quoting harkin: The way MSNBC dealt with the black fellow who showed up armed (by trimming the photo to avoid revealing his race) then announcing that white racists were coming to the Townhall meetings armed says it all.

Classic wingnuttery, straight out of the Glenn Reynolds playbook: We got our one black guy, so we ain't racist! Haw, haw, haw, suck on that, liberalzzz!!!1! Seriously, is there anyone who follows the news at all who doesn't know that Chris Broughton is black? And does the fact that Newsbusters was able to make a mountain out of a molehill of one short segment on TV really mean that the overwhelming number of those over-compensators aren't white guys who just can't deal with the reality that we have a black president? Care to bet on how many of them "have questions" about the Birf Cirtifikit? But how many people who only casually follow the news know anything else about this sad sack? It's all fun and games until someone loses a life.

If you had asked me a year ago I would have told you that Dems wouldn't ever pursue gun control again, and that I was happy about it.

They won't pursue it until President Obama gets shot.....which he will, if the right-wing extremist hatred and racism keeps getting whipped up by talk radio and tv clowns. Here's how you can help in a truly bipartisan effort to reduce gun violence.

for the love of god,
Stop using Glenn Beck as a REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE !!!!!!!!!! He is NOT. Come on guys, be better than that. Do not lauch at the most dim witted crippled member of a group, best them, and then claim superiority. You have claimed nothing but showing you can show up a mental cripple (his act), feel proud?

Wow, that Levenson piece was amazing (and disturbing). Don't know if I will even bother watching this diavlog if McMeghan's arguments are in-line with her post.

Quoting JonIrenicus: for the love of god,

Stop using Glenn Beck as a REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE !!!!!!!!!!

He is NOT.

Come on guys, be better than that. Do not lauch at the most dim witted crippled member of a group, best them, and then claim superiority.

You have claimed nothing but showing you can show up a mental cripple (his act), feel proud?

I'm not sure what context you're talking about, Jon, but when you've got the kind of ratings he's got, he is a major player of sorts. Right now, he's kind of the rookie of the year to Rush Limbaugh's established star. DougJ agrees with me, so, you know, case closed. But seriously, I am glad you (whom I think of as a conservative) would like to distance yourself from him, and I hope there are many more conservatives who are just as annoyed about the association of Beck and your side as you are. I encourage you to encourage others of your ideological stripes to speak up. Disagree all we want about whatever issues, Glenn Beck is poison for every individual and us all together, and all sane people should turn a deaf ear to him as one.

Quoting JoeK: The White House's blatant disregard for the Constitution of this land ...

This isn't just you and your friends saying "megadittoes," you know. That's a very serious charge. Defend it, if you can. With specifics and documentation, please, and not just a bunch of links to other wingnut blowhards making the same unsupported assertion.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Long time viewer, first time poster, ...

Welcome. Don't be a stranger.

... finally compelled to pipe up due to the sheer hypocrisy and demagoguery of Michelle Goldberg, which I tolerated for 82 minutes for reasons passing understanding.

Haven't watched this one yet, so I can't speak to what MG said. However, in general ...

The amount of nerve required for ANYONE on the left to whine and complain about a toxic and potentially dangerous political climate deriving from irrational and visceral hatred of those in power is really beyond me. The amount of unhinged vitriol directed at Bush ...

... if the best you've got to offer is repeating this talking point, maybe I better take back the first thing that I said. In the first place, hatred for Bush did not develop until after he had been in office for years and had done a number of seriously bad things. I don't want to argue the specifics, because I'm sure we won't agree and they've been beaten into the ground in the years since, but it took quite some time until people started realizing that he'd started an unwinnable war on false pretenses, bankrupted the economy with tax

Amen. Great first post. I find Goldberg to be too cocooned away in progressive, urban America. She's the quintessential urban living American progressive. Everything she says is just because the progressive way is the only way. We're not violent, we're not violent... it's the small town American militias. No, Michelle, anarchists aren't violent? Left-wingers didn't call the Bush administration a junta, a regime, or fascist? They didn't portray Bush as the psychotic Joker? Black men aren't murdering other black men in droves across urban America? Michelle Goldberg is simply clueless about America and its people. Hell, the last two American Presidents shot at were white, male, and Republican. And despite the nastiness of the Right towards Bill "My Wife Lets Me Sleep With Other Women" Clinton no one ever tried to end his life.

Michelle forgot to mention the anti-Iraq war guy who went into a military recruiting center and shot and killed a military recruiter a few months ago.

I think i have reached my limit on the time any media outlet can spend
on an insignificant topic like these gun toters. It seems obvious to me
that once the first gun toter was given the spotlight on TV he was going
to be followed by any number of copycats. This isn't about killing obama
or spreading fear, it's about a guy who stands in front of his mirror, all holstered up and preens with his revolver. Anyone seen Taxi Driver? This was a chance for those guys to get on national TV and become
immortalized on YouTube. Dream come true! Michelle G. needs to grow up. She should come walk thru the streets of
New Orleans where the gun you're afaid of is the gun you don't see until it's too late.

Why does nobody ever talk about the foiled bombing attempt of Crowder and McCay of the Republican National Convention? If it hadn't been foiled wouldn't this have been the largest example of domestic political violence in the US, probably ever?

I'd be willing to bet that the guns of all these people who have shown up armed (and you can throw in all my guns plus Dick Cheney's shotgun) have killed less people than Ted Kennedy fortified with a quart of scotch and an Oldsmobile Delmont 88. And have any of these gun-wielders said: "Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside.

Our intention is to engage the enemy, to wear away at him, to harass him, to isolate him, to expose every weakness, to pounce, to reveal his vulnerability.

Our intention is to encourage the people, to provoke leaps in confidence and consciousness, to stir the imagination, to popularize power, to agitate, to organize, to join in every way possible the people's day-to-day struggles.

Our intention is to forge an underground, a clandestine political organization engaged in every form of struggle, protected from the eyes and weapons of the state, a base against repression, to accumulate lessons, experience and constant practice, a base from

This hasn't got anything to do with guns. Isn't the real subject here?: the Democratic party hates and actively attacks the far left, and they are pissed because they see mainstream Republican senators tolerating far-right nuts with a gee-wiz condescension.

...yawns. I haven't had a lot of exposure to him because I took a look at his book and didn't get myself very far past the chapter titles. I have seen a few clips of his show, which caused mental anguish. It's like taking the intelligence out of Ann Coulter (who I really love) and marinating with pure annoying bottled from a dozen younger siblings. Far as I've seen Beck is the living incarnation of the conservative irritable mental gesture. So it beats me why liberals take him so seriously... (yes I am implying something there)

Re: the Answer protests Seems like they were the only gig in town. You had two choices: go to the huge protest organized by the childish commies, or ... sit around and wish there were another protest. The violent left is entirely made up of hippie-fratboy hybrids. The violent right is dudes who horde canned food and hide in the hills. I think the violent right is probably more competent, since they're over the age of 27. Therefore scarier. But really, can't we all just agree that Glen Beck is a douche?

The unabomber was certainly a far left terrorist. The beltway sniper, John Allen Muhammad, was a Nation of Islam wannbe and black nationalist. Both these individuals identified with the left and both killed to advance their progressive causes.

Quoting JonIrenicus: for the love of god,

Stop using Glenn Beck as a REPRESENTATIVE EXAMPLE !!!!!!!!!!

He is NOT.

Come on guys, be better than that. Do not lauch at the most dim witted crippled member of a group, best them, and then claim superiority.

You have claimed nothing but showing you can show up a mental cripple (his act), feel proud?

I think Glenn Beck is very talented and I much prefer watching his show compared to the nightly Fox commentary show lineup. There is an alliance between Rush, Beck and Sarah Palin. All top notch talent who combined reach a large audience.

Quoting Lyle: Amen. Great first post. I find Goldberg to be too cocooned away in progressive, urban America. She's the quintessential urban living American progressive. ....

Michelle Goldberg is simply clueless about America and its people. Hell, the last two American Presidents shot at were white, male, and Republican. And despite the nastiness of the Right towards Bill "My Wife Lets Me Sleep With Other Women" Clinton no one ever tried to end his life.

All true and very well said. However, I think the breakup of the nation is going to be forced from pressure on the right. At some point and time, the use of force cant be unexpected. The democrats are deficit spending the federal government into bankruptcy. The right will respond by withdrawing their communities from the federal system.

Quoting harkin: Wait a minute, that would be the guy who introduced Barack Obama to Chicago politics - Bill Ayers, who btw dedicated his manifesto to Sirhan B Sirhan, known wingnut - whoops!

Change You Can Believe In!

I think the left has discovered that the ballot box is much more effective way to seize power than any form of violence. It would be interesting to know the win/loss record of left and right wing militia groups in the history of Central and South America. Almost by definition, the minority in a one man one vote democracy has to use other means to maintain their sovereignty.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think Glenn Beck is very talented and I much prefer watching his show compared to the nightly Fox commentary show lineup. There is an alliance between Rush, Beck and Sarah Palin. All top notch talent who combined reach a large audience.

Wow. This is... I'm trying to... How can I... Wow.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I think Glenn Beck is very talented and I much prefer watching his show compared to the nightly Fox commentary show lineup. There is an alliance between Rush, Beck and Sarah Palin. All top notch talent who combined reach a large audience.

So very true.
It's disappointing to see leftist journalists rip into their more talented colleagues on the right, rather than try to learn from them. Liberal media types should ask themselves: OK, what does Glenn Beck know they I don't?
Is it too much to ask to see Bob Wright tear up for his country in front of a web camera every now and then? I don't think so.

Quoting bjkeefe: I've seen a number of good posts responding to Megan's guns-at-protests thing. Quote:
Another Reason Why My Doctor Tells Me The Nation Shouldn’t Read Megan McArdle…

…the necessary blood pressure medication on its own would bankrupt our soon-to-be-reformed health care system.

Though perhaps, pieces like this actually evoke more of a sense of wonder than anything else — not merely at the banality and evil so neatly conjoined in its content, but at the astonishing reality that anyone who routinely writes such…how to put this…bonecrushingly stupid; water-her-twice-a day dumb;* the wheel is spinning but the hamster’s dead** material, still has a job, much less an apparently appreciative audience.***

Actually, I think I have to credit McArdle with some cleverness here. Her post is so full of different instances of nonsense, bad faith argument, sheer failure to understand what she seems to think she is talking about that she achieves a certain effect: by seeding her post with so much to be debunked, she increases the odds that one whack-a-mole notion or another will slip past the defenses of rationality and real-world experience.

Life is, of course, too short to club every mechanical rodent that

BJ, a few things. First of all, when someone accused Obama of shredding the constitution, you become suddenly became very offended, and asked for specific charges, as such slanderous things shouldn't be thrown around with documentation...then you turn around and accuse Bush of eviscerating the constitution without a shred of evidence. Classy. Secondly, while we'd probably agree more than you'd think on Bush's shortcomings, can you at least admit that it's subjective to think of him that way? As in, you can't just say "he got what he had coming, he was a moron." Well, you CAN say that, but it's not empirical, and it's not a serious argument. And are you really going to play spooky with the phrasing of the Obama assassination sentence, when any literate and coherent person above the age of 9 could tell I meant that it's not a useful comparison because Bush's presidency has come and gone, and he is still very much alive, I'm sure much to your chagrin. Debating the treatment of Obama vs. Bush in the media is not very useful, as there's too many examples to wade through, and when people on the left are in strict denial

Quoting mattcbrown: Wow. This is... I'm trying to... How can I...

Wow.

Beck, Rush and Sarah Palin all espouse traditional American community values. A solid, healthy mix of self reliance and communitarianism. Where people help their neighbors because they respect them.

MM - "Were those who called Bush a fascist responsible in any way for the people who plotted or tried to kill Bush?" MG - "No." Game. Set. Match. Nicely done Megan.

The right wing is a minority in the US. Those who believe in individual liberty. the right to purchase health insurance without the imposition of mandates like community rating and must cover condition regulations are a distinct and permanent minority in the country. Theoretically, people might use violence to achieve the freedoms denied them by the majority. In practice, violent, unlawful actions by right wingers to achieve political objectives are highly unlikely. People who are hard working and self reliant have a lot to lose by breaking the law. And by their nature such people will find a way to retain what they have earned and produced from the clutching government. Left wing lunatics dont have to use violence to achieve their ends. They just have to wait for the next incremental increase in the scope of government, wait for the next election where the percentage of democrat voting immigrant group members will be higher than it was in the past.

Great to have you back, Michelle! STOP THE TAPE: Two minutes into the diavlog ...did I just hear Megan suggest that people bet on the likelihood of political violence? How tasteless can you get?

Quoting chiwhisoxx: then you turn around and accuse Bush of eviscerating the constitution without a shred of evidence. Classy.

What about The Patriot Act?

Quoting chiwhisoxx: ...by saying things like that to first time posters, you're not exactly encouraging others to join in.

Welcome, do keep posting.

Quoting Lyle: find Goldberg to be too cocooned away in progressive, urban America . . .
Michelle Goldberg is simply clueless about America and its people. Hell, the last two American Presidents shot at were white, male, and Republican. And despite the nastiness of the Right towards Bill "My Wife Lets Me Sleep With Other Women" Clinton no one ever tried to end his life.

Lyle, you are not really this stupid, are you? You claim you are a lawyer. Therefore you must have some shred of rationality - one would hope. So, I'm going to be charitable, and assume that I'm simply misreading your post. Because there is no way that are you falling for the line that urban (read: majority) America is not the "real" America, whereas rural (read: sparsely populated, dying, white) America is the "real" America, is there? I say again: you are not this stupid, are you?

Was there anything of substance to this conversation? I listened for about 20 minutes and stopped since it seemed to be going nowhere. John

Where do I imply urban America isn't real America? Have I ever defined what I think the real America is? Have I even criticized urban America in my above statement? Or am I criticizing Michelle Goldberg for being small-minded and ignorant of other American realities?

Megan is an idiot.

Wow, what a deep thought.

You and these other violent hicks

A lot of projection going on, it seems. In all the video documents about these town hall meetings that have been going around, almost all the violence comes from fans and supporters of the Great One. Which reminds people of the Second Amendment. People who disagree with me are stupid racists, and my team is way much better than your team!

Two of hundreds of reasons not to subscribe to cable television: Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck. John

So the security concerns of the politicians should out weigh the security concerns of the citizen?

Quoting piscivorous: So the security concerns of the politicians should out weigh the security concerns of the citizen?

I now that feels like an applause line, Pisc, but it's just incoherent.

Michelle forgot to duck when she made that Oliver North comparison. She's probably still looking for her teeth.

So the security concerns of the politicians should out weigh the security concerns of the citizen?

Do you mean that, for example, Joe the Plumber should be just as concerned that President Obama will shoot him during a psychotic episode of media-stoked rage as President Obama should be about some random psycho racist shooting him?

I don't know. I read down through the false dichotomy and the straw man part, and I was like "good points." But then I got to him dissing Megan for being an English major and I just didn't see the point. I mean, Megan is pretty full of shit here, so I don't think trying to tar English majors is necessarily 1) on topic or 2) polite or 3) defensible. If you ask me, she's playing "pox on both your houses," and that only works sometimes. I don't really remember what exactly she said, and I'm sure there's some stupid little nuance that's there only for wiggling out of an accusation like I'm about to make, but: she seems to think "liberals" who joked about Bush getting killed were awful people, but then instead of thinking gun-guy is also awful, she says he's civic minded or something like that. Like, "this is wrong, unless I saw a 'liberal' do it, because then it's awesome to do, because it results in cosmic balance or something, la la la." Gun guy is not civic minded. He is retarded. People who say they want the president to die are immature idiots, whether the president is Bush or Obama. But gun guy didn't say

Quoting Wonderment: Do you mean that, for example, Joe the Plumber should be just as concerned that President Obama will shoot him during a psychotic episode of media-stoked rage as President Obama should be about some random psycho racist shooting him?

lolz.

I realize it is almost fall and that there is an abundance of straw available but I am curious these individuals, with the weapons, got how close to the President or the congresspersons?

Quoting nikkibong: Lyle, you are not really this stupid, are you?

You claim you are a lawyer. Therefore you must have some shred of rationality - one would hope.

So, I'm going to be charitable, and assume that I'm simply misreading your post. Because there is no way that are you falling for the line that urban (read: majority) America is not the "real" America, whereas rural (read: sparsely populated, dying, white) America is the "real" America, is there?

I say again: you are not this stupid, are you?

You must be thinking of someone else. Lyle's in middle school. Go easy on him.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Beck, Rush and Sarah Palin all espouse traditional American community values. A solid, healthy mix of self reliance and communitarianism. Where people help their neighbors because they respect them.

Oooooookaaaay... Do please go on, because this is fascinating.

Quoting claymisher

Do you mean that, for example, Joe the Plumber should be just as concerned that President Obama will shoot him during a psychotic episode of media-stoked rage as President Obama should be about some random psycho racist shooting him?

No, but if I were Joe the Plumber, I'd be afraid that a random racist Obamabot psycho will shoot me. We've seen some purple shirts come pretty close to that.

Quoting ivanlenin: Wow, what a deep thought.

A lot of projection going on, it seems. In all the video documents about these town hall meetings that have been going around, almost all the violence comes from fans and supporters of the Great One. Which reminds people of the Second Amendment.

People who disagree with me are stupid racists, and my team is way much better than your team!

No, in all the "video documents" that YOU have seen that may be the case, but the world, or even just Youtube, isn't limited to your experiences. People who think it's OK to mix guns and politics are stupid and violent and if you don't understand this then you too are stupid and violent. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. If these people want to carry weapons to political fora and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them then they should go join the Taliban. If you want to keep the GOP from degrading into something equivalent to the Taliban then you should spend less time giving succor to the terrorist-minded element in the party and more time purging it.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Beck, Rush and Sarah Palin all espouse traditional American community values. A solid, healthy mix of self reliance and communitarianism. Where people help their neighbors because they respect them.

Take my former "Wow" and triple it; blend in a little "Good Lord!" and sauté it with "WTF?"; garnish it with "Holy Hell." Season to taste.

Quoting mattcbrown: Take my former "Wow" and triple it; blend in a little "Good Lord!" and sauté it with "WTF?"; garnish it with "Holy Hell." Season to taste.

Steve just says crap like that because it gets people to pay attention. I think he's actually a Commie trying to make the extreme right look ridiculous.

Quoting ivanlenin: Quoting claymisher

No, but if I were Joe the Plumber, I'd be afraid that a random racist Obamabot psycho will shoot me. We've seen some purple shirts come pretty close to that.

Who can forget this tragic victim? :P I can never keep this straight. Are we liberals mean liberal fascist thugs or hippie faggot pussies? Both?

Quoting AemJeff: Steve just says crap like that because it gets people to pay attention. I think he's actually a Commie trying to make the extreme right look ridiculous.

Yeah, that is so over the top I can't believe it's real. I don't buy Olbermann as being in any way equivalent to Beck. Olbermann's politics are pretty boring really. He's just a more emotional Mark Shields. Who's the worst liberal? The worst I can think of is Randi Rhodes. Are there any full-on truthers I'm forgetting?

Quoting claymisher: Yeah, that is so over the top I can't believe it's real.

I don't buy Olbermann as being in any way equivalent to Beck. Olbermann's politics are pretty boring really. He's just a more emotional Mark Shields.

Who's the worst liberal? The worst I can think of is Randi Rhodes. Are there any full-on truthers I'm forgetting?

The Olbermann is the Devil meme is kind of funny, and pretty much self refuting. Push somebody to on the details of his perfidy and all they can do sputter about "Worst Person In the World!" Compare that to the output of Rush and his "Magic Negro" (just to name one thing) or Beck, or Savage, or Coulter, or Malkin, or Pammycakes, or... Even Randi Rhodes was never more than a second or third tier player, and at her worst wasn't comparable to anyone on the list in the previous graf. There are just as many fruitcakes on one side as the other, if you're counting heads. The difference is that the Right seems to reward acting like an asshole a lot more than the Left does.

Quoting AemJeff: The Olbermann is the Devil meme is kind of funny, and pretty much self refuting. Push somebody to on the details of his perfidy and all they can do sputter about "Worst Person In the World!" Compare that to the output of Rush and his "Magic Negro" (just to name one thing) or Beck, or Savage, or Coulter, or Malkin, or Pammycakes, or...

Even Randi Rhodes was never more than a second or third tier player, and at her worst wasn't comparable to anyone on the list in the previous graf.

There are just as many fruitcakes on one side as the other, if you're counting heads. The difference is that the Right seems to reward acting like an asshole a lot more than the Left does.

Yeah, the myth of moral equivalence doesn't only apply to the cold war. I don't know why anyone would expect reality should be symmetrical. I also don't know why anyone thinks, "Your side is equally terrible," is much of a defense.

I agree. To me the whole matter is pretty cut and dried. We live in a representative Democracy where every citizen has a voice through the ballot box, not to mention any number of op-eds, campaign contributions, boycotts, letters to Senators, etc. to express their displeasure with government policy. Our system id predicated on the assumption that our government agents are held responsible through legal channels, not violence. I don't want people with rifles at ANY political rally, regardless of who the speaker is. Just like I don't want them near schools, sporting events, concerts etc. Standing in front of somebody with a gun is not an exercise in free speech, it is a completely obvious threat that not only endangers the crowd and the speaker, but is aimed at stifling the very principles of free speech that the gun-people, so often claim to want to defend. There's a reason that the mafia, unions, the Klan etc., are banned from using these tactics of intimidation, and that same reason should apply to the wingnut/birther/death-panelers...just as it applied to 911 truthers, greenpeace or any other group who makes that ill-conceived step beyond speech and into mob behavior. Anyone brings a gun to

Quoting Toryentalist: What about The Patriot Act?

While I agree the Patriot Act is a horrible piece of legislation, please don't try and airbrush out the role Democrats played in passing it. Only one Democratic Senator, Russ Feingold, voted against it.

Quoting claymisher: Yeah, that is so over the top I can't believe it's real.

Who's the worst liberal? The worst I can think of is Randi Rhodes.

Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinney, and renowned bhtv poster "I'm So Awesome." The right-wing demonization of Olbermann - and Franken, as well - is utterly laughable. As you correctly point out, they are essentially center-left democrats with . . . senses of humor.

Should it be the same law for those that bring clubs to the voting place?

Quoting AemJeff: Even Randi Rhodes was never more than a second or third tier player, and at her worst wasn't comparable to anyone on the list in the previous graf.

Absolutely. I should have been clearler -- my point was that you've got to get pretty deep on the bench to find nutters equivalent to Beck and O'Reilly.

Quoting claymisher: Absolutely. I should have been clearler -- my point was that you've got to get pretty deep on the bench to find nutters equivalent to Beck and O'Reilly.

I got that - I was just trying to amplify your point. I should have been more explicit.

Quoting nikkibong: Michael Moore, Cynthia McKinney, and renowned bhtv poster "I'm So Awesome."

The right-wing demonization of Olbermann - and Franken, as well - is utterly laughable. As you correctly point out, they are essentially center-left democrats with . . . senses of humor.

Heh. Rosie O'Donnell.

I can never keep this straight. Are we liberals mean liberal fascist thugs or hippie faggot pussies? Both?

I'm a hippie faggot pussy until you spill my chai tea, then, IT'S ON!

Quoting KnuckleUnder: ...please don't try and airbrush out the role Democrats played in passing it.

Where did I say any of that? You've just made that up.

Quoting Tim O: I'm a hippie faggot pussy until you spill my chai tea, then, IT'S ON!

And how. If somebody spills my $5 macha soy latte they're going to hear about it.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I agree. To me the whole matter is pretty cut and dried. We live in a representative Democracy where every citizen has a voice through the ballot box, not to mention any number of op-eds, campaign contributions, boycotts, letters to Senators, etc. to express their displeasure with government policy.

The problem with this is the constitution contains little to no economic protections for the individual citizen. The majority can shut down entire industries like health insurance providers. It can inflate the money supply, run up staggering deficits. The minority in effect is helpless against the actions of the majority.

Quoting nikkibong: STOP THE TAPE: Two minutes into the diavlog ...did I just hear Megan suggest that people bet on the likelihood of political violence?

How tasteless can you get?

I'm with you. That was my reaction. It puts people in the position of hoping for something horrible to happen. But then I think dead pools are disgusting too.

I think Michelle Goldberg is misdiagnosing her feeling of dread when she says it is a fear of right–wing violence that causes it. What Goldberg is actually afraid of is a real possibility that embracing this type of "extreme" rhetoric can bring Republican party some electoral success in the future. It could even bring Republicans back to power in a year or two. That’s what fills her heart with terror.
What will she do; where will she go if Republicans win in 2010, let alone 2012? She will be completely lost and she wouldn't be alone. More I think about it I realize that leaving liberals powerless in this fashion would really endanger public safety.

Quoting pampl: No, in all the "video documents" that YOU have seen that may be the case, but the world, or even just Youtube, isn't limited to your experiences.

If these people want to carry weapons to political fora and intimidate anyone who disagrees with them then they should go join the Taliban. then you should spend less time giving succor to the terrorist-minded element in the party and more time purging it.

People who think it's OK to mix guns and politics are stupid and violent and if you don't understand this then you too are stupid and violent. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

To prove your point, all you can say is "Sorry, that's the way it is"? You know, that's really convincing. Very smart, too. So the Founding Fathers were stupid, right?

If you want to keep the GOP from degrading into something equivalent to the Taliban

I don't give a rat's a** about the GOP. I'd like to vote them out just as much as the Dems. So, if you provided links to evidence of violence from "the terrorist-minded element" on the right during these town halls, it would help a lot more than your repeated

Quoting JoeK: I think Michelle Goldberg is misdiagnosing her feeling of dread when she says it is a fear of right–wing violence that causes it. What Goldberg is actually afraid of is a real possibility that embracing this type of "extreme" rhetoric can bring Republican party some electoral success in the future. It could even bring Republicans back to power in a year or two. That’s what fills her heart with terror.
What will she do; where will she go if Republicans win in 2010, let alone 2012? She will be completely lost and she wouldn't be alone. More I think about it I realize that leaving liberals powerless in this fashion would really endanger public safety.

I think it is quite logical to fear the breakdown of social order and authority. Yes, republicans could win back the house in 2010. But what do they have to offer? A pledge to provide seniors with all the free health care they want? I fear the deficit spending will not be able to be reduced in an orderly manner. Notice that the townhall participants, both for and against HCR, are mostly white. Representatives of 40% of the population is missing

Quoting ivanlenin: To prove your point, all you can say is "Sorry, that's the way it is"? You know, that's really convincing. Very smart, too. So the Founding Fathers were stupid, right?

...

Ever actually read the Second Amendment? Despite Scalia's explicit disavowal of the actual text, it doesn't really support your overheated rhetoric.

Quoting Toryentalist: Where did I say any of that? You've just made that up.

Sorry, my comment might be a bit unfair. However, George W. Bush didn't single handedly trash the Constitution. He had a lot of help doing it.

Quoting KnuckleUnder: However, George W. Bush didn't single handedly trash the Constitution. He had a lot of help doing it.

Well I wasn't saying that either.

Quoting Toryentalist: Well I wasn't saying that either.

Clear as mud.

The shear ignorance and epistemological hubris on display from both Michelle Goldberg and many of the commenters is so astounding as to be either darkly comedic or contemptible. Are your senses of empathy really so underdeveloped or your experience of people unlike yourselves so utterly limited that you cannot see the patently obvious: that good, ordinary, benign and well-meaning people (even if they are people either oblivious to, or, more likely, unduly dismissive of how other people may interpret their actions) can and do reasonably believe that peacefully carrying a weapon to a political event is a legitimate, even admirable, expression of mundane, non-threatening, patriotic pride in, and advocacy of, the right to keep and bear arms, which is an important and symbolically representative part of our nation's constitution and civic culture? Call this my egotistical bias, but I have real trouble believing that this display of ignorance could be real, and not simply feigned for rhetorical purposes. I simply don't understand how someone could function normally in society without, on some level, having a much more complete understanding of others' motivations than is evinced by such a failure to comprehend an American sub-culture

I use to go to shooting ranges with my father, so I am generally sympathetic to the idea that good people own and enjoy guns. Still, I am a little perplexed by how sacred conservatives view the right to bear arms. If I were to list the most important rights to me that I have as an American citizen, the right to bear arms would not my top ten or even twenty list. P.S.
And no, the right to bear arms DOES NOT protect all your other rights. I know its hard to believe, but your two hunting rifles and three handguns will not protect you from the US army. Your only protection is the hope that in an extreme enough situation, the rank and file would ignore their superiors.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I use to go to shooting ranges with my father, so I am generally sympathetic to the idea that good people own and enjoy guns. Still, I am a little perplexed by how sacred conservatives view the right to bear arms.

If I were to list the most important rights to me that I have as an American citizen, the right to bear arms would not my top ten or even twenty list.

P.S.
And no, the right to bear arms DOES NOT protect all your other rights. I know its hard to believe, but your two hunting rifles and three handguns will not protect you from the US army. Your only protection is the hope that in an extreme enough situation, the rank and file would ignore their superiors.

Judging from Iraq I guess what we need is the right to plant improvised explosive devices where military vehicles go. Let's see what Scalia and company think about that.

As I implied, I think symbolism is clearly a significant, if not the main, factor in the special attention paid to the 2nd amendment. That symbolism probably has several elements: 1. Historically, gun ownership may in fact have been important to the preservation of the rights of the people, and to that extent it still represents the Right of Revolution, the quintessential right of the people in one understanding of our basic constitutional order. 2. Historically, the right was one of those most often identified by the Reconstructors who passed the 14th amendment applying the Bill of Rights to the States. 3. Historically, especially during Reconstruction, the right was heavily tied to the right of self-defense, the quintessential right of persons in another understanding of our basic constitutional order. 4. Gun ownership is a cultural touchstone. Many people perceive (accurately or not I cannot say with certainty) that a more politically dominant sub-national culture ("liberal coastal elites"-quote-unquote) view guns with some disdain and would like to get rid of them. Thus, for many Americans, the 2nd amendment represents the only real example of a right they want to exercise, but which they suspect they couldn't if there were no

Thus, for many Americans, the 2nd amendment represents the only real example of a right they want to exercise, but which they suspect they couldn't if there were no constitutional protections.

You mean as opposed to voting, talking, assembling, praying, not being strip-searched, owning stuff and so on?

Quoting claymisher: Judging from Iraq I guess what we need is the right to plant improvised explosive devices where military vehicles go. Let's see what Scalia and company think about that.

I think the more correct analogy would be a right to make and possess IEDs, not to use them. (The 2nd amendment doesn't grant a right to kill people). In all seriousness, Akhil Amar, for instance, has speculated that radio equipment may be protected under the proper meaning of the 2nd amendment for similar reasons. Scalia, if past reasoning is any guide, might read the protection of the 2nd amendment as applying to modern weapons that are analogous to those we know to have been protected at the time of the founders, rather than attempting to discern a more general rule of why those devices were allowed, and then applying that criterion to modern weapons. This is the sort of move that is justifiable, but does generate an obvious originalism-based critique. On the other hand, before tackling difficult questions about which weapons are protected, the Court is likely to face the question of Incorporation under the 14th amendment, which will give it

Quoting Wonderment: You mean as opposed to voting, talking, assembling, praying, not being strip-searched, owning stuff and so on?

Indeed, as opposed to those rights, which they either don't care about, or don't worry about. Voting, talking, assembling, praying, and owning stuff are popularly supported rights that would still exist under strict majoritarianism. Not being stip-searched is a right that lots of people think will never be relevant to them. But gun ownership they know is relevant and they suspect would be taken away without the constitution.

I see what you mean. Another way to look at it, however, is that the 2nd Amendment is atavistic, like segregation, creationism, homophobia, male supremacy, capital punishment and other quaint customs that were viewed as compatible with the Founding "Fathers" vision. In a civilized, safe society civilians have no need to carry weapons. The notion that "militias" of citizens (people stockpiling and carrying handguns) are protecting my freedom is preposterous in the extreme. I think guns inhibit rather than enhance my freedom, but that's just me. The bottom line is that Americans will continue to cling to their guns (as candidate Obama put it); so gun control is a hopeless cause. No politician in her right mind dares mess with the gun lobby.

Quoting chiwhisoxx: BJ, a few things. First of all, when someone accused Obama of shredding the constitution, you become suddenly became very offended, and asked for specific charges, as such slanderous things shouldn't be thrown around with documentation...then you turn around and accuse Bush of eviscerating the constitution without a shred of evidence.

Dude, get some of your news from some place besides Fox and Rush. There's gobs of evidence out there.

Quoting Wonderment: I see what you mean.

Another way to look at it, however, is that the 2nd Amendment is atavistic, like segregation, creationism, homophobia, male supremacy, capital punishment and other quaint customs that were viewed as compatible with the Founding "Fathers" vision. In a civilized, safe society civilians have no need to carry weapons.

I think lawful gun owners have been very responsible in their use of their guns. And people in rural and exurban communities appear to have no problem with their neighbors having guns. So why meddle in the affairs of other communities and cultures? I am envious that gun owners have something in the constitution to protect their rights. The constitution has nothing that protects citizens from being responsible for the staggering debt that the government is piling up. No protection from arbitrary mandates imposed on commercial transactions between willing and informed persons.

Quoting bjkeefe: Dude, get some of your news from some place besides Fox and Rush. There's gobs of evidence out there.

yeah, really. Turn on CNN and get informed on the details of the life of Michael Jackson. Tune into the investigative reports on MSNBC about people bringing assault weapons to town hall meetings. Or read the WSJ editorial page and learn that the FDIC is running out of money and will likely have to draw on its $500 billion line of credit from the US Treasury.

I believe even secession has potential for constructive political action. In fact, like Tom Delay I believe my portion of the state should be able to secede and get 2 Senate seats.
...
...
... Oh my that is not me that's our very own **Michelle Goldberg** here and here. That's real rich. But as starkly hypocritical as it is..it really shouldn't be surprising. McArdle and C.S. Lewis are semi-correct imo in observing the pleasure we take in demonizing our enemies and touches on the other side of the equation: cost. This is a subset of a concept Bryan Caplan author of "Myth of the Rational Voter" referred to as "rational irrationality" . It's cheap and psychologically beneficial to view yourself as being good and fighting evil but, in politics, there is very little cost in doing so. Thus demonization and chest thumping about "those evilmongers" is merely an exercise in self-esteem via politics. It not new and while unfortunate I don't think its that dangerous. The townhallers engage in it but won't do anything b/c there's a real *cost* to an action. The left-wing blogosphere will crow about it but would probably still attend a townhall with

Quoting DenvilleSteve: yeah, really. Turn on CNN and get informed on the details of the life of Michael Jackson. Tune into the investigative reports on MSNBC about people bringing assault weapons to town hall meetings. Or read the WSJ editorial page and learn that the FDIC is running out of money and will likely have to draw on its $500 billion line of credit from the US Treasury.

Those have what to do with Bush?

Quoting jimM47: Are your senses of empathy really so underdeveloped or your experience of people unlike yourselves so utterly limited that you cannot see the patently obvious:

Perhaps, although I think it is funny that this argument consistently seems to be made (including by Megan) by people who demonstrate themselves the things they are complaining about, namely an inability to stop cariacturing and questioning the good faith of those who disagree with them. And with Megan I think a good bit of it is something that we talked about re some of the more sensible conservatives, like Douthat and Salam. Specifically, commenting from a place where you are surrounded by a particular type of conservative and assuming that they are representative and that the debate as a whole bears some resemblance to that facing your average conservative at Harvard or in an upper-middle class or highly-educated social circle in an urban environment. Where, indeed, the conservatives often seem like the open-minded ones and the mind-set of the dominant liberal view can seem overwhelming. This is not actually applicable to the country as a whole, though, so the way

I totally agree.

Quoting ivanlenin: To prove your point, all you can say is "Sorry, that's the way it is"? You know, that's really convincing. Very smart, too. So the Founding Fathers were stupid, right?

The Founding Fathers didn't bring their rifles to the Constitutional Convention you idiot. edit: re-reading what you wrote, I guess you're looking for an explanation? Carrying weapons around a political event or demonstration, especially one you disagree with, is an obvious act of intimidation. Using the threat of violence against opposition is illiberal and anti-democratic and leads to political sphere in which nearly everyone's worse off. I suppose there may be a few of these armed psychos who have a good reason to think they'd do well in an America where the voting is conducted at gunpoint, but for 95% of the people it's stupid.

ROFL!!

I think lawful gun owners have been very responsible in their use of their guns.

That, of course, is ridiculous, given the number of gun homcides over the years. Some people are very responsible. Others are reckless assholes. Others just make careless mistakes, like me and you.

And people in rural and exurban communities appear to have no problem with their neighbors having guns. So why meddle in the affairs of other communities and cultures?

Yes, that's fine, unless of course, you are a victim of gun violence or intimidation. It's like abortion. I'm not meddling in your community by believing a woman has a universal right to terminate a pregnancy. But I do get your point. People are paranoic that the federal gov. will take away their guns. I have zero hope of significant gun control change in the country. Most gun safety groups work around the edges at the most egregious "gun freedom" excesses (like assault rifles). I loath guns. I've never owned one and never fired a handgun (I shot a rifle once). I hate hunting, and I think handgun carrying degrades the quality of life in my community (thankfully, it's generally illegal). I do not want our children to be around guns

If it was made you could carry a gun, but not in plain sight, would that help alleviate your trepidation towards guns?

If it was made you could carry a gun, but not in plain sight, would that help alleviate your trepidation towards guns?

No, even creepier. Well, creepy in a different way. I do like the idea of police officers being armed, however. (I may be a pacifist, but I'm not crazy).

Posted to Craig’s List / Personals: To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last. Date: 2009-05-27, 1:43 A M EST.
I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend threatening our lives. You also asked for my girlfriend’s purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message. First, I’d like to apologize for your embarrassment, I didn’t expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason.. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 A CP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head … isn’t it! I know it probably wasn’t fun walking back to wherever you’d come from with that brown sludge in your pants. I’m sure it was even worse walking bare footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell

Quoting Wonderment: That, of course, is ridiculous, given the number of gun homcides over the years. Some people are very responsible. Others are reckless assholes. Others just make careless mistakes, like me and you.

In 1999, there were 28874 gun-related deaths in the United States and 41,717 motor vehicle fatalities. Clearly we need to outlaw the deadly weapons of motorcycles, trucks and automobiles. The majority of gun deaths are from illegal weapons while the majority of motor vehicle deaths are by legal owned and possessed motorcycles, trucks and automobiles.

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, that's fine, unless of course, you are a victim of gun violence or intimidation. It's like abortion. I'm not meddling in your community by believing a woman has a universal right to terminate a pregnancy.

Since the ponzi scheme know as Social Security is dependent upon the younger generations of workers paying for the older generation of retirees the decision to have an abortion is by definition a decision that effects all of society. Should society allow these selfish women to wreak havoc on the retirement plans of the nation or should we as faithful members of the nanny state not allow them to destroy

In 1999, there were 28874 gun-related deaths in the United States and 41,717 motor vehicle fatalities. Clearly we need to outlaw the deadly weapons of motorcycles, trucks and automobiles. The majority of gun deaths are from illegal weapons while the majority of motor vehicle deaths are by legal owned and possessed motorcycles, trucks and automobiles.

Thank you for recognizing the urgent need to regulate and license gun owners. I would be very happy with a DDW (Dept. of Deadly Weapons) modeled on the DMV, wherein owners would be trained, photographed, tested, licensed and renewed every five years. Awesome idea! Or perhaps I missed your point, and you were really arguing for deregulating driving and eliminating licenses.

Michelle, Very Good Points! Hiding behind buffoonery a la Beck, Buchanan, Limbaugh as a cover for inciting violence is exactly what is going on. These guys are the spiritual godchildren of Senator Joe McCarthy. They are effectively shouting fire in a theater. Where is our era´s Edward Murrow? What to do? The big problem is that these people connect with large numbers of people because they talk in a distinctly low-brow manner. Progressive pundits, however, play to their potential intellectual critics. One of the ironies of William F. Buckley was that he wrapped his retrograde opinions with a high-brow vocabulary, thereby making his opinions palatable to progressive types. Something of that sort is needed in reverse to cut the legs out from under these guys. A Woodie Guthrie in the MSM. Sorry, Megan, Michele won this round because she sees the larger picture.

And which of the 48 states don't require a license? And which ones don't have an educational requirement? Perhaps you should spend some time researching an issue before you punish the keys with ignorance.

assassination threats against president bush were profligate amongst the left. as were comparisons of president bush with hitler specifically and the charge that bush was a tyrant moving the country toward dictatorship. no progressive accepts the legitimacy of his election to office a sampling: http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612 http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621 representativeness: "I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone. "
(D) Senator John F. Kerry New York State comptroller, Alan Hevesi said during a June 1, 2006 speech that Senator Charles Schumer “will put a bullet between the president’s eyes if he could get away with it.” Hevesi later apologized for the statement. “Like Fredo, somebody ought to take [President Bush] out fishing and [sound of gunfire].”
Air America host, Rani Rhodes etc.
another minor point: goldberg dismisses the matter of ANSWER's astroturf demonstrations by claiming that there is no congress between ANSWER's stalinist politics and the democrat party. The director of ANSWER, ramsy clarke, was attorney general under democrat president LBJ. the current democrat president, barack obama, recieved his first national media coverage for speaking at an ANSWER rally in Chicago, 2003.

the "internment camps" nonsense, it should be noted, began with the anti-patriot act hysterics. to list the deranged conspiracy theories the left nurtured about bush - from electronic voting machines, to aipac conspiracies, to haarp being used as a weather machine to fake nuclear tests, etc - would be too many to recount. what is interesting is that, while many of these had left origins and progenitors (rense.com, indymedia.org, democratunderground etc) the sorts of "rightwingers" who spout the birther nonsense today distributed their views from the bosom of the leftoverse during the bush years. leftwing blogs were happy to repeat, albeit in most cases, third-hand, the "october surprise" claim originating from neo-nazi propagandist hal turner. turner was also the source of the claim that bush sent navy seals down to new orleans to plant dynamite on the levees. progressives of course have their own independent strains of conspiracy nuts. notable amongst them would be lyndon larouche, from whom naomi klein plagiarized her "crisis capitalism" idea. kudos to mcardle for pointing out that progressives pre-framed their calls for blood with the clever twist that any riots or killings organized by progressives would be the responsibility of the

Quoting chiwhisoxx: Long time viewer, first time poster, finally compelled to pipe up due to the sheer hypocrisy and demagoguery of Michelle Goldberg, which I tolerated for 82 minutes for reasons passing understanding. The amount of nerve required for ANYONE on the left to whine and complain about a toxic and potentially dangerous political climate deriving from irrational and visceral hatred of those in power is really beyond me. The amount of unhinged vitriol directed at Bush was at such a high level and so mainstream, people didn't even bat an eyelash at it, Keith Olbermann created a cottage industry out of it. Whatever happened to dissent being the highest form of patriotism, anyways?

Nobody has a problem with dissent. The problem is Republicans who fantasize about and threaten violence as a solution to their political problems. Republicans have been talking about taking the country back by force since Obama was inaugurated. And these views have been endorsed at the highest levels of the Republican Party. There is not now, nor has there been at any point in the modern era, any parallel for this in the Democratic Party. When Bush/Cheney were

Quoting JoeK: The only violence right-wing protesters and their spokesmen want to provoke is that of the state.

Yes. That's exactly right. Someone else made the point down-thread that there is a real cost to taking up arms against the government, so although this is the wish of a vast number of Republicans, they are held in check by the very real fear of law enforcment. Believe me, they talk about this problem endlessly: How to start the revolution. They know they cannot be the ones to start it. They absolutely depend on the government firing the first shots.

Quoting JoeK: Just like with other non-violent demonstrations, the protesters win when state overreacts. Had the police, for example, seized the weapons of law-abiding citizens, their movement would feed off of the moral outrage that would have ensued. That didn't happen, so good for the police.

Yes. It's quite clear that the Secret Service isn't going to do anything to provoke these assholes or play into the victim mentality.

Quoting JoeK: On the other hand, what did happen was members of Obama's administration orchestrating campaign to silence the media critical of their policies.

What are you talking about?

Quoting JoeK: The White House's

And which of the 48 states don't require a license? And which ones don't have an educational requirement? Perhaps you should spend some time researching an issue before you punish the keys with ignorance.

Even though you are disingenuously bullshitting, I'm glad to know that you support stringent drivers-license type requirements for gun ownership. Thanks for you support. You can make a donation here As I'm sure you know, practically any idiot can buy a gun at an unregulated gun show in most states.

The Brady Law requires criminal background checks of gun buyers at federally licensed gun dealers, but since unlicensed sellers are not required to do background checks, this loophole causes particular problems at gun shows which give these unlicensed sellers a guaranteed venue. In most states convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, and those who are dangerously mentally ill can walk into any gun show and buy weapons from unlicensed sellers, who operate week-to-week with no established place of business, without being stopped, no questions asked.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold used two shotguns, an assault rifle and a TEC-9 assault pistol to shoot 26 students at Columbine, killing 13. All four

Quoting snoble: Why does nobody ever talk about the foiled bombing attempt of Crowder and McCay of the Republican National Convention?

The "bombing" of the Republican convention? You're talking about an event where a guy was going to throw burning gasoline on a big tv outside the convention, and later changed his plan to throwing burning gasoline on some parked cars. Neither would have cost any human life. Am I unaware of important details, or are you grossly misrepresenting the planned attack? That said, the plans were reprehensible, and the two year sentence the kid who was plotting the crime got was entirely justified. There's a key difference, however: There isn't a national movement of Democrats encouraging violence.

Quoting snoble: If it hadn't been foiled wouldn't this have been the largest example of domestic political violence in the US, probably ever?

Puhleeeez. Burning some parked cars would not have even made the top 100.

Quoting jimM47: that good, ordinary, benign and well-meaning people ... can and do reasonably believe that peacefully carrying a weapon to a political event is a legitimate, even admirable, expression of mundane, non-threatening, patriotic pride in, and advocacy of, the right to keep and bear arms, which is an important and symbolically representative part of our nation's constitution and civic culture?

This description bears absolutely no relation to the ultraconservative extremists who have been showing up at Obama events carrying firearms. Do you know anything at all about these people?

second amendment dudes bringing their guns out with them with no apparent intent to use them: http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...0824kibby.html

A Texas woman faces trial this month in Austin on charges she threatened to kill a government informant who infiltrated an Austin-based group that planned to bomb the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., last fall.

and, geez, isn't obama himself a close friend of the weather underground terrorist william ayers? in any case, a look at the history reveals that the sort of thing progressives are pantomiming phony hysterics over is likely to come from obama's left:

But if we're headed for a discussion about violence directed against presidents, since Messrs. Frum and Moyers opened the discussion, it's worth noting that three of the four men who assassinated presidents were -- yes indeed -- men of the left. Charles Guiteau, who shot James Garfield, is known to history as the "disappointed office seeker" -- which is to say a guy who didn't get a job he felt owed. The others -- John Wilkes Booth (Lincoln) was furious at the "tyrant" Lincoln for his military victory over the Democratic Party's backbone, the slaveholding aristocracy. Leon Czolgosz, McKinley's assailant, was a fervent socialist

Quoting stephanie: Perhaps, although I think it is funny that this argument consistently seems to be made (including by Megan) by people who demonstrate themselves the things they are complaining about, namely an inability to stop cariacturing and questioning the good faith of those who disagree with them.

Well, look, I haven't heard the argument that convinces me that either Megan or I is caricaturing the position of those I disagree with, but as for the second charge, I can't do anything but cop to it — or at least a version of it. Yes, I am questioning the degree to which what my opponents say is literally what they believe, but I don't think I am merely dismissing their arguments as a result: I have given the counter-argument that you would give to good faith argument. And I haven't attempted to impune the motives of my opponents, I have only suggested that I am legitimately questioning whether their supposed ignorance is the result of either insufficient self-reflection or rhetorical technique. And even there I feel like I was pretty candid about the fact that my questioning of this may be the result of my own lack of understanding.

Quoting stephanie: And with Megan I think

Quoting TwinSwords: This description bears absolutely no relation to the ultraconservative extremists who have been showing up at Obama events carrying firearms. Do you know anything at all about these people?

If they are indeed ultraconservative extremists, and not just people others are liable to mistake as ultraconservative extremists, or normal conservatives who happen to enjoy spouting loud, ill-considered and ill-spoken things, then indeed I do not "know anything at all about these people." The things I have seen, read, and heard do not support that charge, but if you would like to link me to a source which provides counter-evidence, I will read it.

I think the problem with your guns-to-cars license analogy is this: You can indeed buy a car without a driver's license, and sales of used cars by ordinary people without established businesses or regular oversite make up a significant amount of sales. You still can't operate that car on public roads without a license, but its the same with guns: you aren't allowed to carry that gun you bought at a gun show unless you have a license. So in fact the existing licenses for the two are quite analogous in their content and structure. Of course, someone who is driving a car untrained or unlicensed is far more likely to be noticed, stopped, and penalized than someone carrying a concealed weapon untrained or unlicensed is, so you could argue that in terms of effectiveness, the two are not at all analogous — and you'd be right. But in order to get the same sort of control of gun use through gun licensing as we have control of automobile use through driver licensing, you need a level of government control that is of a very different

Wow...a dingalink on HotAir!!!

You accuse those expressing dismay at armed folks attending presidential appearances of projecting their irrational fears, lumping critics into a group you describe as ignorantly assuming that the gun toters are

Quoting jimM47: .. openly and abjectly evil.

You in turn assume that they are instead

good, ordinary, benign and well-meaning people

who

reasonably believe that peacefully carrying a weapon to a political event is a legitimate, even admirable, expression of mundane, non-threatening, patriotic pride in, and advocacy of, the right to keep and bear arms

and further suggest that armed presence at an appearance by the president is just a symbolic act since

the 2nd amendment represents the only real example of a right they want to exercise

All of which seems to represent you projecting your prejudices and preconceptions onto both the gun carriers and their critics. Despite an admission that in reality,

I do not "know anything at all about these people."

you lump them into a group, as you did with those critical, and propose a whole set of philosophic viewpoints, attitudes, and motivations common to anyone who shows up packing heat. Its quite possible to be far

Most cumbersome diavlog ever!

Quoting Wonderment: Even though you are disingenuously bullshitting, I'm glad to know that you support stringent drivers-license type requirements for gun ownership.

Thanks for you support. You can make a donation here

As I'm sure you know, practically any idiot can buy a gun at an unregulated gun show in most states.

Here for instance is a listing of the various Colorado statutes concerning firearms.

InstaCheck Related Statutes:
C.R.S. TITLE 12; Article 26.1 (Background Checks-Gun Shows.)

C.R.S. 12-26.1-101 (Background checks at gun shows-penalty.)
C.R.S. 12-26.1-102 (Records-penalty.)
C.R.S 12-26.1-103 (Fees imposed by licensed gun dealers.)
C.R.S. 12-26.1-104 (Posted notice-penalty.)
C.R.S. 12-26.1-105 (Exemption.)
C.R.S. 12-26.1-106 (Definitions.)
C.R.S. 12-26.1-107 (Appropriation.)
C.R.S. 12-26.1-108 (Effective date.)

C.R.S. 12-26-102 (Retail dealer - record - inspection.)
C.R.S. 13-5-142 (National Instant Criminal Background Check System-reporting)
C.R.S. 13-9-123 (National Instant Criminal Background Check System-reporting)
C.R.S. 24-33.5-412 (Functions of Bureau - legislative review)
C.R.S. 24-33.5-424 (National Instant Criminal Background check system-state point of contact-grounds for denial of firearm transfer-appeal-rule-making-unlawful acts-repeal.)

Weapon Related Statutes:
C.R.S. 18-12-101 (Definitions.)
C.R.S. 18-12-102 (Possessing a dangerous or illegal weapon-affirmative defense.)
C.R.S. 18-12-103 (Possession of a defaced firearm.)
C.R.S. 18-12-103.5 (Defaced firearms-contraband-destruction.)
C.R.S. 18-12-104 (Defacing a firearm.)
C.R.S. 18-12-105 (Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon-unlawful possession of weapons.)
C.R.S. 18-12-105.5 (Unlawfully carrying a weapon-unlawful possession of weapons-school, college, or university grounds.)
C.R.S. 18-12-105.6 (Limitation on local ordinances regarding firearms in private vehicles.)
C.R.S. 18-12-106 (Prohibited use of weapons.)
C.R.S. 18-12-106.5 (Use of stun guns.)
C.R.S. 18-12-107 (Penalty for second offense.)
C.R.S. 18-12-107.5 (Illegal discharge of a firearm-penalty.)
C.R.S. 18-12-108 (Possession of weapons by previous offenders.)
C.R.S. 18-12-108.5 (Possession of weapons by juveniles-prohibited-exceptions-penalties.)
C.R.S. 18-12-108.7 (Unlawfully providing or permitting a juvenile to

I really hate to contradict Ms Goldberg, and I also really hate the fact that I have to defend Glenn Beck, but he never once claimed that FEMA Concentration Camps existed. In fact, he worked with 'Popular Mechanics' to produce not only a one-hour special to debunk them, but also an entire magazine feature to document all the evidence against them.
I think that's quite different than the way Ms Goldberg characterized it.
And before you flame me, I only know because a friend of mine is a total Glenn Beck fan (yes, I know, I'm sorry too.) I sincerely hope that's the last time I have to defend someone like Glenn Beck...

The problem with the arguments that the lady on the left is using is that the people on the right aren't as stupid as she is.

HAHAHAAH. I just got to the point where she says there's no difference between the gunners that the Feds killed in the 90s and the gigantic bomb of McVeigh.

I can't believe this. Does everyone remember the violence and hatred and shrieking and Bushhitler accusations of the last 8 years? I can't believe that the left is waking up and complaining about people being jerks.

Then she says that the very rare illegal use of guns by lawful bearers is irrelevent to use as evidence that right-wing gun bears are not prone to violence , but then she says these people are likely to shoot the President. All of the past Presidential assassinations that were done because of political ideology were all killed by leftists.

The guys in Phoenix who showed up with the guns... they called the Sheriff's office the day before and notified the police that they were going to show up with them and checked to make sure that there wouldn't be any adverse reaction against them by the police.

AARGH ENOUGH. Now she's going to board airplanes that had no security screening. Who can honestly believe that. I had to turn it off. The times are stressful enough, i dont need to add to the stress.

Quoting VinceP1974: The guys in Phoenix who showed up with the guns... they called the Sheriff's office the day before and notified the police that they were going to show up with them and checked to make sure that there wouldn't be any adverse reaction against them by the police.

So, those pricks were a bunch of pussies?

Quoting pampl: Wow, I feel bad for defending McArdle in the past, she's really gone off the deep end. I can't listen to more than 5 minutes off this BS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMev5QQxs00#t=2m
All I can say to anyone thinking Meagan was the one who came off looking unreasonable here is that link above. Might I suggest the reason you consider her reaction to Goldberg such BS, is that you believe in the warped screed Michelle holds true.

Quoting cragger: making the automatic assumption that each and every person holding a gun shares those attitudes or holds the same intentions as any other.

I would suggest that you reread my words. I nowhere say that "each and every person" bringing a gun to a political rally "holds the same intentions as any other" or that I know them all to be good and reasonable people. I never say I know what the motivations of all these people are — the strong implication is that such information is, as a practical matter, unknowable. In fact, let me say that again: it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately discern the true motivations of large numbers of individual actors, so in light of that, no one should be stating confidently that they know that someone in a dialogue has a secret malicious intent counter to his or her expressly stated position unless the accuser has damned strong evidence for it. That's it. That's my point. It's a really simple one and this just happens to be the instance I am applying it to. If you are not saying that you know that these people are there to

If the Ivy League taught me anything, its that glib, superior, I-Know-Basic-Probability-And-Rhetoric-So-Who-Needs-Expert-Knowledge argumentation beats overenthusiastic hysteria every time. It astounds me that anyone could come away from 80 minutes of this and not think Michelle lost this argument, and badly. I'd bet even Michelle would admit to herself that she lost. The Sound of Michelle Losing Look, McMegan is wisely making the weakest possible claim here. She isn't saying it's OK to bring guns to rallies. She isn't saying Glenn Beck is a sane man. She's just saying that for a serious charge, you should extend to people the benefit of the doubt when there's a reasonable chance that there is no ill intent. The left (and I'm one of them) is constantly going on about the gun nuts; wouldn't it be surprising if none of said wackos figured it would be coolie-O to bring their guns to a town hall protest?

Quoting jimM47: if you would like to link me to a source which provides counter-evidence, I will read it.

There are some links in this post.

Quoting jimM47: If they are indeed ultraconservative extremists, and not just people others are liable to mistake as ultraconservative extremists, or normal conservatives who happen to enjoy spouting loud, ill-considered and ill-spoken things, then indeed I do not "know anything at all about these people."

What's interesting is that this militant, fast-growing, anti-government movement is largely below the radar. It's getting some coverage on a couple of fairly well trafficked liberal blogs, and it has gotten more attention than I would have expected on MSNBC in the last couple of months. But I have been amazed by the number of people who described William Kostric (New Hampshire "blood of patriots" guy) and Chris Broughton (assault-weapon bearing guy from the Arizona event) as simply "civic minded individuals" who are innocently advocating their 2nd Amendment rights. It shows a total misunderstanding and incomprehension of who they are and what they are doing.

Quoting jimM47: The things I have seen, read, and heard do not support that charge, but if you would like to link me to a source which provides

Quoting JonIrenicus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMev5QQxs00#t=2m

All I can say to anyone thinking Meagan was the one who came off looking unreasonable here is that link above. Might I suggest the reason you consider her reaction to Goldberg such BS, is that you believe in the warped screed Michelle holds true.

I'm not watching some goofy and apparently irrelevant youtube video, sorry. Your attempt at intellectual relativism is pathetic, though. The reason what McArdle says is BS is because, among other things, there's a difference between petty vandalism and murdering hundreds of people. There's a difference between the number "4" and the number "1". You may not believe there's a difference, and maybe even McArdle doesn't believe there's a difference, but that non-belief doesn't magically alter reality.

That was, by far, the worst bloggingheads I have ever seen. Both sides made just terrible arguments. This thing is almost a textbook in bad argumentation. Eighty minutes of this stupid topic? There was no winner, only losers who wasted 80 minutes of their lives on the HORRIBLE video. Yikes.

Megan is the worst conversationalist on BH with the possible exception of that Bill guy who does the shows with the boring guy that reads blogs. Michelle Goldberg is one of the few humans who could be so destroyed in a verbal arguement with Megan.

Quoting HeatherShow: I really hate to contradict Ms Goldberg, and I also really hate the fact that I have to defend Glenn Beck, but he never once claimed that FEMA Concentration Camps existed. In fact, he worked with 'Popular Mechanics' to produce not only a one-hour special to debunk them, but also an entire magazine feature to document all the evidence against them.
I think that's quite different than the way Ms Goldberg characterized it.
And before you flame me, I only know because a friend of mine is a total Glenn Beck fan (yes, I know, I'm sorry too.) I sincerely hope that's the last time I have to defend someone like Glenn Beck...

Thank you for your honesty.

Who's murdered hundreds of people?

TBogg comments on some more open-carry nuts.

What exactly makes these people nuts?

Quoting JonIrenicus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMev5QQxs00#t=2m

All I can say to anyone thinking Meagan was the one who came off looking unreasonable here is that link above. Might I suggest the reason you consider her reaction to Goldberg such BS, is that you believe in the warped screed Michelle holds true.

I am among those who are criticizing Meagan, because I think you shouldn't be encouraged to bring firearms to public events involving the President, regardless of any political parties. I do recognize one could object to Michelle's performance here. Mostly I want to say, that video is awesome, and watching the Twilight Zone was the perfect way to start this morning. Man, nothing will ever be as perfect as that show in the same way again.

Quoting Lyle: What exactly makes these people nuts?

Among other things, the fact that you're knee-jerkingly standing up for them. But really, if there were ever an example of "just because you can doesn't mean you should," this open-carry nonsense is it.

Why shouldn't they? People are smart enough to realize that they're the group of people advocating their 2nd amendment rights. What is there to be afraid of? People won't think they're the Bloods or Crips, or David Koresh folk, but the sensible folks who believe in gun ownership.

I am generally pro gun rights, yet feel open carry is moronic. It doesn't take a genius to realize this will lead to open intimidation, which will create a positive feedback as more people carry to avoid that intimidation. Open carry has little to no benefits, yet will lead to a whole range of problems we would be better off not having to deal with. Concealed carry--->Okay
Open carry-------->Moronic

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am generally pro gun rights, yet feel open carry is moronic. It doesn't take a genius to realize this will lead to open intimidation, which will create a positive feedback as more people carry to avoid that intimidation.

Open carry has little to no benefits, yet will lead to a whole range of problems we would be better off not having to deal with.

Concealed carry--->Okay
Open carry-------->Moronic

Concealed carry guarantees the right of angry, low self-esteem assholes to bolster their personality problems with a feeling of personal empowerment derived from their ability to feel like superheros. No thanks. Note: That not every person with a concealed weapon qualifies as a member of the class above, is not evidence that the assertion is untrue.

Quoting jimM47: Well, look, I haven't heard the argument that convinces me that either Megan or I is caricaturing the position of those I disagree with

Well, it seemed to me that Megan, and to some extent you, was saying that if someone claimed to be bothered and offended and, frankly, worried about the phenomenon of the extremist rhetoric of Beck et al and the people bringing guns to rallies, that one must be either feigning or some sheltered liberal unable to understand the mindset of the normal redblooded gun-owner. That's not accurate -- I, for one, am familiar and comfortable with many conservatives and gun-owners, and it's actually insulting to them to suggest that they are the kind of people we are talking about, who would run around bringing their guns to protests or are so alienated from mainstream America or liberals that they assume that an Obama gov't means fascism or whatever.

Yes, I am questioning the degree to which what my opponents say is literally what they believe, but I don't think I am merely dismissing their arguments as a result

And I find it so odd as to be unbelieveable that you would find

Concealed is preferable maybe... but I don't think people are necessarily intimidated by someone openly carrying a gun. I think people have just gotten use to seeing no one do it. Police openly carry and people understand why, and people are thoughtful enough to understand that guns right advocate Bob down the street isn't a threat and is just doing his thing. Maybe you are right though, but Americans use to openly carry all the time. Israelis walk around with guns on them a lot of the time too. I'm not really advocating for open carry laws, but I think it is all a matter of perception. I personally would feel safer knowing honest people are around me carrying. It would lower the risk of whack jobs massacring people and probably lower petty crime by making the average criminal more risk averse (some might counter that they'll double down and arm up more so, and maybe some will, but a lot guys committing crimes don't really want to be killed or maimed, I think).

What's wrong with the former though?

I'm pro gun rights, but I will never feel comfortable if people can carry concealed (or open) weapons in New York City. So many people get angry on the train and on the sidewalk--it just happens, every day someone is going to piss you off for something. I just don't trust people to have guns in that situation. Cops, yes; everyone else, no thank you. But having one in your apartment, in case someone breaks in? Sure, of course.

Wasn't this plot basically hatched by an FBI informant and not very serious in the first place? I'm not making excuses for them or denying that there are violent crazies on the left, it's just that this plot seemed pretty dubious.

Sure Jim, lets both reread your words. You started this sub thread with:

The shear ignorance and epistemological hubris on display from both Michelle Goldberg and many of the commenters is so astounding as to be either darkly comedic or contemptible. Are your senses of empathy really so underdeveloped or your experience of people unlike yourselves so utterly limited that you cannot see the patently obvious: that good, ordinary, benign and well-meaning people (even if they are people either oblivious to, or, more likely, unduly dismissive of how other people may interpret their actions) can and do reasonably believe that peacefully carrying a weapon to a political event is a legitimate, even admirable, expression of mundane, non-threatening, patriotic pride in, and advocacy of, the right to keep and bear arms...

Thats a pretty furious and hyperbolic attack on Ms. Goldberg and commenters. "Shear (sic) ignorance and epistemological hubris" of astounding and contemptable proportions, and such a lack of empathy and experience that they "cannot see the patently obvious". An attack continued later when you claim that your targets see folks with guns as embodiments of abject evil. Somehow your non-hubristic epistemology leads you to a

Quoting osmium: I'm pro gun rights, but I will never feel comfortable if people can carry concealed (or open) weapons in New York City. So many people get angry on the train and on the sidewalk--it just happens, every day someone is going to piss you off for something. I just don't trust people to have guns in that situation. Cops, yes; everyone else, no thank you.

But having one in your apartment, in case someone breaks in? Sure, of course.

Like cops never loose their temper and emotionally overreact right? Perhaps if more people were carrying, and everyone knew it, some of these irate assholes would think twice before taking making a minor inconvenience or travesty into a federal case. In Florida if you frighten me to the point I feel my life or safety is threatened I have the right to pop a cap into the individual(s) that I feel threatened by. I have nothing but personal antic dote but I have had seen less irate behavior, on public display, since the law was passed a couple of years ago.

Quoting Liberty1776: Kill Bush exhortations (Scroll down for pics): http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621

My, My talk about a climate of fear!

Let's save the chest thumping and self-righteousness.

I wish that guy had a better sense of perspective; like 2/3rds of those are really outrageous and *should* have received more publicity and condemnation, but the other 1/3 are real stretches. It'd be a more compelling page if he dropped the really weak ones. That'd still leave a couple dozen and all of them would be risible. What's the deal with the references to the Secret Service? Is he arguing that they're partisan?

Quoting pampl: I wish that guy had a better sense of perspective; like 2/3rds of those are really outrageous and *should* have received more publicity and condemnation, but the other 1/3 are real stretches. It'd be a more compelling page if he dropped the really weak ones. That'd still leave a couple dozen and all of them would be risible.

What's the deal with the references to the Secret Service? Is he arguing that they're partisan?

I would not be surprised if 98% of the pictures on that page were photoshopped, or even taken in other countries. There is no way I would take anything on that far-far-far right site at face value. Even if every picture is real, there's a significant difference: there is no national movement on the left advocating violence against the government or against Republicans. On the right, however, there is such a movement and it has been receiving direct encouragement and support from the Republican Party since the final months of the 2008 campaign, and this support has escalated dramatically in recent months. We hardly go 3 or 4 days anymore without a prominent national Republican endorsing revolution or political murder. Many people are

Quoting TwinSwords: I would not be surprised if 98% of the pictures on that page were photoshopped, or even taken in other countries. There is no way I would take anything on that far-far-far right site at face value. Even if every picture is real, there's a significant difference: there is no national movement on the left advocating violence against the government or against Republicans. On the right, however, there is such a movement and it has been receiving direct encouragement and support from the Republican Party since the final months of the 2008 campaign, and this support has escalated dramatically in recent months. We hardly go 3 or 4 days anymore without a prominent national Republican endorsing revolution or political murder. Many people are fond of saying "there are nuts on both sides," and sure enough, there are. What there is not on both sides is a national political party encouraging the worst element of the party's base.

You come here and deny photographs and then throw out B.S. without an oz. of proof. You are not believable.

In Florida if you frighten me to the point I feel my life or safety is threatened I have the right to pop a cap into the individual(s) that I feel threatened by.

There is no state where you have the right to shoot someone because you "feel threatened." A ridiculous assertion and one I'm sure you'll retract once you think about it a little.

This conversation sucked. Frankly, both Megan and Michelle came off as a bit dumb and ideologically rootbound, which I don't have reason to believe is true of either of them, and I think is because both of them were forced into defending caricatured positions that neither of them holds. As far as I can see, this debate can be distilled into a couple of separate questions: - Why are people bringing guns to health care rallies?
- What sort of effect does it have on the health care debate and the overall political "climate" to have people bringing guns to health care rallies?
- What motivates gun nuts in the first place and what relationship do gun nuts have to mainstream politics?
- Is there a relationship between the mainstream conservative movement and the right-wing militia movement?
- How dangerous is the right-wing militia movement?
- What sort of effect do bloviators like Beck and Limbaugh have on mainstream political discourse, and what sort of effect do they have or can they have on crazy people? It seems like common sense to me that there is political resonance in the act of openly carrying

Quoting Wonderment: There is no state where you have the right to shoot someone because you "feel threatened." A ridiculous assertion and one I'm sure you'll retract once you think about it a little.

Really?

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.Really!

Yes, really. Try re-reading the statute you quoted, especially the part about distinguishing between force and deadly force. I would also like to note that "popping a cap into someone" may constitute the obscene use of language the new Bheads draft guidelines warn against. If I were brave, I would report you to the comments nanny. But you might construe that as a threat and feel obliged to shoot me.

At least you didn't elide the "except deadly force" part and just show an ellipsis.

Quoting kezboard: [...] Similarly, as legal as carrying an unloaded gun to the Escondido mall may be, for Christ's sake. What is this, the Northwest Frontier Province?

It will be, by gum, as soon as Escondido secedes and joins the Free Nation of Alaska! We are all Georgians now!

We are all Georgians now!

Keefe, you are a commie traitor, pal of terrorist and pederast! Or is that plagiarast? Something to do with ass. I know that much. Copy cat, we use to call them at the Hanoi Hiltin in Nam. I'm 71 now. My running mate Sarah is good with names, dates and whatnot. I do 't have to be. Devil in details and whatnot. I, as president (almost) can concertrate on the Big Picture, like the nuclear football. 21-72--hike. Ba-ba-bam Iran. Death panals. Dont you wish we w
ere your pres and vp instead of the Negro commie and Joe the Jerkoff? I told you so. God Bless , not God damn, America.
We are All Georgians now

Quoting John M: [...]

I had a wish that the magic words would work if I said them out loud, and they did! Hurrah! Welcome back, Senator. Thanks for your valuable contributions to the discourse lately. I hope you will not be a stranger to this site, though I understand how busy you are.

you mean this part "the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

And I doubt that you have to report me to the comment nanny as I'm pretty sure at least one of the 4 censors is sure to have read this already.

Quoting piscivorous: Like cops never loose their temper and emotionally overreact right?

Is this bait? ((happy place, happy place, happy place, happy place...)) Pisc, we agree on things sometimes. Yes, the police can do bad things if they are bad apples. However, I wouldn't be so radical as to suggest either a) taking away their guns, or b) arming the walking-around citizenry to defend against them. I'm going to have to take my chances out in the that big, bad world, learning to walk to work without a gun and not be too afraid.

I live in a village that has no regular police force. The one they had was so bad and corrupt they disbanded it and now subcontract policing out to the county sheriffs. So yes in some instances I would defiantly like to see the guns removed from the hands of the cops. In general no; my main point was that cops are the same species of flawed individuals that make up society in general, and some of them are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

Quoting piscivorous: I live in a village that has no regular police force. The one they had was so bad and corrupt they disbanded it and now subcontract policing out to the county sheriffs. So yes in some instances I would defiantly like to see the guns removed from the hands of the cops. In general no; my main point was that cops are the same species of flawed individuals that make up society in general, and some of them are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

This is the big problem of talking about the 2nd amendment, isn't it? The country is so different in different places. Did people in the rest of the country get the news about the shopkeeper in Harlem who was robbed, and asked the robbers to leave? When they didn't, he shot them, killing two, with a gun he had bought after a robbery 20 years ago. He said, "I don't know what feels worse, now or when my son died." This seems more like an appropriate story to get media attention re: gun laws. But instead, we are talking about a cable news addict who wore a gun to

You're still not getting this, dear Mr. Fishy. You claimed that you could shoot a guy if you "felt threatened." That is simply not the case anywhere. I felt threatened yesterday when a guy honked his horn at me. Could I have legally blown his brains out?

I guess you and I define the word threatened quite differently

1. to utter a threat against; menace: He threatened the boy with a beating.
2. to be a menace or source of danger to: Sickness threatened her peace of mind.
3. to offer (a punishment, injury, etc.) by way of a threat: They threatened swift retaliation.
4. to give an ominous indication of: The clouds threaten rain.
–verb (used without object)
5. to utter or use threats.
6. to indicate impending evil or mischief.

And are you really that insecure that you could be threatened by a blowing horn. Or is it just blowing in general that threatens you?

You need to say threatened with severe and imminent bodily harm or something to the effect. You can't kill someone unless a rational person would believe severe and imminent bodily harm is about to happen to them. Otherwise you can't use deadly force. Most states have exceptions for when someone is in their own house though.

I guess you and I define the word threatened quite differently

Exactly. You assume that if you feel threatened, you can shoot whomever you please. I and the law assume that if you feel threatened, you can't shoot anyone unless you actually are in danger. Not feel, be. Since I've repeated this 4-5 times now, I think I'll call it a day. Happy last word!

(S)He can play all the word games (s)he wishes the fact still remains that if I feel threatened, and too a large extent if my property is threatened, I can respond in a direct and positive manner. There have already been case decided in this manner so all the word games are already moot.

Not if your property is threatened. That's definitely not the law. You cannot use deadly force to maim or kill to protect your property. Your physical person or someone elses person must be under the threat of grievous bodily harm (language is different in every State I guess). Lots of peole think they can use deadly force to defend their property, but in fact, it is against the law and they will be charged with murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, assault, and/or battery (or whatever the charges are in the jurisdiction).

The application of "self-defense" has always been dependent upon the "feelings" of the one making the claim as there is no way to write a legal standard that will encompass all possible situations. If you feel threatened by horn blowers by all means go to Florida and pop a cap into one or two. I hope you come up with a very creative lawyer and a shrink or two that can show that with your history of mental instability it was reasonable for you to infer that the horn blowers were in reality threatening in stead of just annoying assholes. (smiley for the humor challenged)

Do you practice law in FL? Have you read the FL statutes?

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; car-jacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.

No, but Florida's new law is the only one of its kind. What I'm telling you is the common law, which is more or less the law in every State. Florida has staturized something different from everywhere else. If you were in Georgia for example, you wouldn't be able to kill some one for burglarizing your home. You'd be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter. Home invasions are the exception to the rule in the common law and normally you can defend yourself in your home with deadly force. However, if someone jumps you fence to poach one of your cattle and you shoot and kill them, the law doesn't allow for that. Also because the law is new it will take time for the courts to determine what means what, and what is too much force, etc... Talk to lawyers in Florida and have them explain to you the difference between Florida's law and the law everywhere else. I'm also not making a judgment call on what is right and what is wrong, I'm telling what is what.

It nice to see that you have expertise in the laws of the other 49 states, that you agree you don't have of the FL statutes. I would agree that it is conventional wisdom that you can't use deadly force to protect property so I can understand your confusion. But it is my understanding that FL was the 5th state to have such statutes.

P, You're the one who wrote you can use force to protect your property. I assumed you meant using a side arm which would be unreasonable in most places. That's why I responded in the first place. I'm not familiar with every State's criminal statutes, but it is well published that Florida went beyond the traditional common law rules that most States have statutorized as their law. Each State has their on particular ways of handling it, but in most States you couldn't shoot someone who was burglarizing you unless they were armed and in your house. Or say someone was stealing your car that was parked in front of your house. You couldn't shoot them to stop them from stealing your car. Interestingly enough I just came across this in the Houston Chronicle which seems to describe a classic home invasion use of deadly force. The police chief even used the language to "feel threatened". Haha. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/6603195.html

Quoting cragger: Yeah, at least some of the gun toters are probably ok, and and would be ill-served by blanket statements but that is not what you have said previously in this thread, nor what I responded to.

That is certainly what I meant. And rereading my posts that's still what the words I wrote appear to convey. (I am not going to tease out the nuance of my prior words, so if you don't see it upon rereading, I think we should just drop it).

Quoting cragger: If I have indeed taken this out of context, then the meaning of these words as they stand alone is changed from what you meant by them.

"If [thing that is probably not true] is true, then I am wrong" cannot be excerpted as "...I am wrong" without significantly changing the meaning. Excerpting it without the elipsis goes a step further.

the new hate speech laws is created to silence people who mention "hate facts" like the fact that blacks commit crimes at a rate many times more than asians

Quoting dkschwartz: the new hate speech laws is created to silence people who mention "hate facts" like the fact that blacks commit crimes at a rate many times more than asians

Oh? Please cite to the statute(s) to which you refer.

Quoting stephanie: Oh? Please cite to the statute(s) to which you refer.

Why bother. It's more fun making up shit.

There's some resistance listening to each of these women who seem to have a bit of a juvenile way of speaking (especially Michelle, but to an extent Megan too), but I powered through on my way back from...well I'll just say Atlanta (RTR) and listened to the whole thing. The problem is that because of the recession and the speeded up tech world of the Internet a lot of young people are given huge megaphones (jobs in media) these days and they haven't really been seasoned or been able yet to develop a mature way of speaking and listening. Many of these young journalists are just annoying, even though they might have a couple good points embedded in there. But blah blah, who cares, moving on. I thought each had good points, and though I disagree with MM far more than I agree with her, I thought she hit the nail on the head a couple times when she challenged MG about leftwing rhetoric and violence, and how if rightwing rhetoric can whip up some nutjobs to commit acts of violence, then you gotta say the same is true on the left. Michelle's

Quoting willmybasilgrow: ... People see a gun and they get fear.

Shouldn't that be people that are not used to seeing guns see one and become fearful. I can't think of anyone, that I know, that are used to seeing and handling firearms become fearful at the mere sight of them.

its not the mere sight of a gun, it is the sight of a gun in the hands of someone you don't know - and in an inappropriate location that causes alarm in many if not most people. my buddy with a gun -ok
some random guy with a gun at shooting range -ok
some random guy with a gun wearing camo in the neighborhood of some woods - ok some random guy with a gun at a political rally - hell no
add in that he is sporting a t-shirt that cites the precedent of killing people with different political views - no fucking way context matters much like the random guy in camos suddenly seems different than my buddy if the context is my living room.

Quoting popcorn_karate: its not the mere sight of a gun, it is the sight of a gun in the hands of someone you don't know - and in an inappropriate location that causes alarm in many if not most people.

my buddy with a gun -ok
some random guy with a gun at shooting range -ok
some random guy with a gun wearing camo in the neighborhood of some woods - ok

some random guy with a gun at a political rally - hell no
add in that he is sporting a t-shirt that cites the precedent of killing people with different political views - no fucking way

context matters

much like the random guy in camos suddenly seems different than my buddy if the context is my living room.

Exactly right. To change the reaction of all the 2nd Amendment tough talkers, all you'd have to do is to change the people toting guns at these town hall meetings to black guys wearing Malcolm X T-shirts (or Mexicans with Che shirts), Obama buttons, and berets bearing the SEIU logo. You'd be able to sell a tractor trailer load of Depends in

I have seen numerous individuals possessing firearms that were complete strangers to me yet I didn't, nor did my friends, cower from the person. Does it get my attention; yes. Do I fear the display of weapons, even from these nefarious strangers. No not really. I find myself more aware of these armed individuals but that is a far cry from the emotion of fear. I fear a gun when I am looking down the business end of it, whether it is held by a friend, because shit happens, or a stranger. When it is holstered or slung there is little if anything to fear. P.s. soon there will be fewer knee jerk reactions of fear if this trend continues 1,000,000+ Guns Added to American Homes in August

Quoting bjkeefe: Exactly right. To change the reaction of all the 2nd Amendment tough talkers, all you'd have to do is to change the people toting guns at these town hall meetings to black guys wearing Malcolm X T-shirts (or Mexicans with Che shirts), Obama buttons, and berets bearing the SEIU logo. You'd be able to sell a tractor trailer load of Depends in fifteen seconds.

Good point. It would be fairly interesting to see the reaction to a 100 pro choice people carrying guns at a pro life rally.

To the left:
Unless I am mistaken, people carrying guns openly to political rallys or town halls is still an odd ball event, there is a disproportionate amount of reporting on this considering how little gravity this story has. I suspect the majority of the backlash to this is mainly because of you guys trying to paint the other side as wacko, stop it. To the right:
Just shut up. Quit pretending you give a rats ass about the Constitution, when you never said a thing about people not even being able to protest Bush's policies at Bush rallys. Remember those designated zones people had to go to to protest that were no where near the actual event? I do. T-shirts are clearly less intimidating then guns.

Quoting Starwatcher162536:
T-shirts are clearly less intimidating then guns.

Not unless ignorance is the weapon of choice then things like t-shirts become far more problematic ( pen something something sword ... ). Don't you know that guns don't kill people, knowledge kills people.

Quoting TwinSwords: Megan asks Michelle whether she thinks there's a 1 in 10 chance that someone will get shot at an event in the near future. Megan misses the point. The targets are not other citizens at these events. The target is the president, specifically, and the United States government, more generally. The weapons are being brought as a direct threat to the US government, and to incite/encourage others to show up with weapons at future events.

And it will work: Republicans showing up with weapons wherever Obama appears will now be a permanent feature of his presidency. For as long as Obama is in office, right wing extremists will follow him around the country with arms.

It happens again:

The New Normal?

Another armed protester at an Obama rally. This time it was at the President's health care event in Minneapolis on Saturday, though it didn't get reported until today apparently. But rest assured. This guy just got out of jail a month ago on assault charges.

--David Kurtz