LOL. It is indeed.

('Course, counselor, that was unresponsive to my question. ;))

Agreed - it's the part that I think is the most fascinating. I'll admit that I'm no expert on health care issues, although I have read through the President's various proposals. I have close friends and family who are very knowledgable on health care policy from previous jobs, so it's been interesting to talk to them about the different proposals and how they are different than what's come before.

However, to see both sides so badly mischaracterizing the other...it's just really interesting. Memo to all those out there: there are good arguments for and against the various health care proposals.

Here's my thing . . . why do we assume these guys are dumb, or purely looking for "shock value"? Is that because we assume gun advocates are morons for some reason?

Think about it - a guy in NH (whose state motto is "Live Free or Die") carries a sign about retaining freedoms, while legally holstering a gun. Why wouldn't we assume this is in direct opposition to Obama's semi-moronic claim that non-urban states "cling to their guns" and all that (a claim which Obama basically recanted on)? Doesn't it seem most likely this guy is making a point, and one that is actually fairly well stated?

Sure, the guy with the AR-15 slung over his shoulder is creating a visceral image - just like Nancy Reagan's fried-egg "Brain on Drugs" or PETA throwing red paint or any number of other campaigns in the past. Does it work? Not generally, but that doesn't make it implicitly dangerous.

It really is fear-mongering of the highest order, a media-fueled level of stupidity that I just can't fathom. Let me tell you - a guy who is planning on taking a shot at Obama probably won't have the gun slung over his shoulder on a street corner, right?

Hmmm....Holocaust museum bring back any memories???

...just saying....


^^^^That.


This isn't Afghanistan.

I understand the right to bear arms...but wasn't that taking it a bit too literally for a protest??

You are protesting about health care...what are you expecting to happen at a healthcare rally that you have to pack heat?

Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Dude . . . "just saying"? You really can't see the difference?

I even OUTLINED IT IN THE POST!

Calm down...I was just picking with you.

Nothing. That's not the point he was trying to make.

I wholeheartedly disagree. With both statements.

I am baffled as to how they were able to do it. I never heard of anything happening like that when Bush was in office. I never would have been able to fathom that someone would be able to have a gun that close to the President. Obama has some of the most stringent secret service security in the history of this country.

If people are concerned about it or disturbed by it, it has nothing to do with whether they like guns or are in a part of the country that isn't as welcoming to concealed or visible guns being carried. It probably has to do with the fact that they were doing this within a certain distance of a sitting President.

I'm not comfortable with it, but if they had permits, it was completely legal. And as your argument with Bush, he was a hard core GOP member who support the right to bear arms. I think people are getting kind of ridiculous though as there is a limit to what Obama can do with gun control without a constitution amendment which frankly I don't think has a snowball's chance.

It's not about whether it's legal to do it. I don't think anyone is questioning the general legality of carrying firearms. I am puzzled that the secret service allowed them in the vicinity like that. I also think Mystic Cat said it best. That kind of weapon is not something typically seen while walking down the street.

Maybe some people feel that way because of WHAT they were carrying and WHEN they were carrying it. I firmly believe that they were looking for shock value. I don't think that's really a farfetched assumption. Does this man typically carry that rifle around on a daily basis since he's so concerned about his right to bear arms? I doubt it.

And you know this how?
:rolleyes:


And "just a shooting?" Kind of sad that someone is so nonchalant about shootings.

Apparently, it was not close enough to where the president was to fall under the secret service's jurisdiction.

That would have to be pretty far away because they have a wide "bubble" of protection.


I must have missed it, but how far away were they? :)


ETA: I read the article again, but I still did not see where they mentioned the distance.

I'm just going to continue praying for Obama's safety. Based on that article, it doesn't sound like THEY were too concerned about his safety. Ridiculous. Seems very lax to me.

Based on this type of behavior, I know I assume THESE (not all) gun advocates are dumb or moronic because of the manner in which they attempt to make a statement. Carrying an assault rifle under these circumstances is what makes people even more interested in gun control. I feel like if you wish to make a statement, do it in a respectable manner. Less is more. I think the man who is simply carrying his Glock in a holster on his belt in a legal manner is going to be taken more seriously and with more respect than someone who is carrying a firearm that looks like it belongs in a military or law enforcement setting. It's absurd and just horrifically backwards. I don't know Obama personally, but something tells me he doesn't respond well to this type of foolishness. You have a better chance of making headway with someone like him when you have an intelligent dialogue with him, presenting your points in a clear and effective manner.