Right-wingers are always eager to dismiss the existence -- and the threat -- of far-right extremists
By David Neiwert Saturday Aug 22, 2009 12:30pm
Conservatives have been working like mad to whitewash out of public view the existence of violent right-wing extremists, only to run into one problem: They keep popping back up again, time after time. Darned reality intrudes again.
So when the Southern Poverty Law Center recently confirmed what we've been reporting at C&L for awhile now -- that the far-right "militia" movement of the 1990s was roaring back to life -- it really wasn't a big surprise when Fox ran a story quoting a bunch of various right-wing officials dismissing it:
"I think it's utter nonsense to say it's racial," said Carter Clews, spokesman at Americans for Limited Government. Clews said Obama's "doctrinaire socialistic approach to government" has triggered a populist backlash, but "it's inappropriate to use the word militia."
The SPLC report came just four months after the Department of Homeland Security issued a controversial report on "right-wing extremists." That assessment carried many of the same themes and warnings as the new "militia" report, also warning that the election of the first black president could be exploited as a recruiting tool.
According to data ALG obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, the DHS relied in large part on news articles, questionable Web sites and several already-public SPLC reports -- not official government sources -- in writing its "right-wing extremists" report.
William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, said the latest SPLC report suggests that DHS and the law center are relying largely on the same pool of information to make their claims about the rise in right-wing extremism.
"They are attempting to brand all right-of-center protesters as potential domestic terrorists or extremists," he said. "They are painting whole swaths of people as hate groups and extremists."
This is, of course, pure bunk of a sort: The report specifies that the key to considering someone under the influence of the Patriot movement is their willing adoption of the various conspiracy theories and provably false "facts" that form the bedrock of the movement's belief systems. Things like, for instance, believing Obama is actually a non-citizen born in Kenya.
So to the extent that the SPLC is branding "whole swaths" of people, that's only true as far as these kinds of far-right beliefs spread. Unfortunately, as we've seen with the adoption of "birther" beliefs by nearly half of all Republicans, that now includes a much broader swath of society than we'd heretofore suspected.
But that is not the SPLC's fault. Rather, all that point raises is serious questions about the direction that movement conservatism is now taking.
After all, all those Obama-hating crazies are not coming out of the woodwork in a vacuum.
Earlier this week, Keith Olbermann explored this in depth with the SPLC's Mark Potok. It's an enlightening discussion.
Login or Register to post comments.
This same right wing called environmentalists and peace advocates "terrorists" and "extremists." Now they deny being extremists? Business as usual.
The Republiklan party has fostered these hate groups. In my view the Republiklan party appears a hate group.
As for the Americans for Limited Government, their name should read Americans for Limited Government for the poor and less fortunate in society.
They don't care if the wealthy gets good large government contracts. They don't care if the military gets an increase of their budget. Let us point out their selective and punishing agenda. They act like bigots against the poor and any social program that would help them and the middle class because they realize that such programs would keep their Republiklan party our of power.
Read our blog http://blog.democratz.org
They also call teachers and nurses associations terrorists.
get the kind of gas mileage that allowed them to take off the day Clinton left office, and to remain aloft for eight years flying around the periphery of the country until Obama was inaugurated, at which point they presumably re-entered American airspace and continued their mission of destroying God's country.
Pretty impressive performance on the part of whoever designed the engine in those things.
it just that the MSM doesnt tell you anything about it when Republicans are in office.
Sociopaths sure do stick together.
Maybe they should bathe more after doin' it.
Don't underestimate how irrational these people are, they aren't a joke. They're dangerous, and I'm talking about 50% of the republican party.
And if it involves breaking a few eggs, they don't care.
"Last Hope". They got nothin' else. Or call it their Last Ditch attempt, and the ditch is full of stupid. violent insanity. The Crazies are rising out of the trenches to take over the Rep party and turn it into another "militia".
The really awful thing is our Democratic Congress & President are running in terror from these zombies, even tho said Zombies can only lurch around in circles waving mis-spelled placards and firearms. They're not actually banging on the White House doors and windows, they're just threatening to, and the President & Co. say "Okay, Okay! I'll do anything! Don't hurt Me!"
I mean to say: WHO is really afraid of Limbaugh, Beck, blotchy O'riley? They're puppets.
Don't focus on caliber or cosmetic features.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rIVfmjkvW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR2QI0wgM24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsnMwQwwNTk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNK4EZrSnWI
Butt...butt...butt...Jeremiah Wright...
There is nothing more dangerous than black people serving as medics to the president and trying to register fellow minorities to vote.
FIST BUMP! He's one of them! :-p
would have occurred if any Dem say, Hillary or Edwards, won the WH,, but if only there were a scientific way of measuring the melanin factor in this paranoia. Not that these f*cks would answer honestly, but I'm guessing it's responsible for at least 50% of their recruitment.
I would agree with that estimate given that the rate of increase has been dramatically higher than when Clinton won.
they would be focusing on her estrogen levels. And Edwards as a baby daddy he would have been DOA by now.
But wouldn't it be interesting to do some testing and find out just how much is in THEIR BLOOD?
We know that an awful lot of them descended from slave owners and an awful lot, if not all, slave owners had a nasty habit of raping female slaves. Perhaps they are protesting a little TOO MUCH.
This response is perfectly predictable. all you have to do is remind yourself, IOKIYAR. Always is and always will be, not just with the wingers, but with the MSM as well. Peaceful protesters who object to imperial wars or gross violations of US and international law on war crimes, however, are always a serious threat to the republic.
race was/is a significant factor in social conflicts...
Funny, that...
that guns are not a significant factor whenever some idiot flips out and goes on a shooting spree.
Complete and utter denial of reality and common sense is how they operate.
Health Care Insurance is a wholly immoral, unethical and inhumane racket. It's nothing more than legally sanctioned blackmail, fraud, extortion and profiteering. America is the only so-called enlightened civilized society in the world that values commerce over the health and lives of it's citizens.
Today's Republicans are an abomination to the teachings and actions of Jesus Christ. Jesus didn't charge the sick he healed or the hungry he fed, but today's Republicans will kill anyone who wants to stop them from doing it.
For the past decade or more this uneasy alliance has been gaining ground, as ideological and political traffic between movement conservatives and right-wing extremists becomes increasingly common. Sometimes the exchange happens almost accidentally, often at the intersection between personal ambition and lurking agendas, as when David Horowitz published the views of white supremacist Jared Taylor at his Frontpage Webzine. Sometimes, as with Coulter, it is done with apparently full intent.
--David Neiwert (chap. 3 p. 71)
Fascism is not a single, readily identifiable principle but rather a political pathology, best understood (as in psychology) as a constellation of traits. Taken individually, many of these traits seem innocuous enough, even readily familiar, part of the traditional American political hurly-burly. A few of them, definitely not all, are present throughout the political spectrum. Only when taken together does the constellation become clear, and then it is fated to take on a life of its own.
-– David Neiwert (Chap. 6 p. 111)
Maybe it's time for sane, rational people who want an informed debate, whether they're Christians or not, to start showing up at some of these town halls with large wooden crosses while reciting the words of Jesus regarding helping the less fortunate, doing unto others as you would do unto yourself, and rendering unto Caesar, etc.
If the right has sunk so low as to pay people to intimidate honest folks, maybe the honest folks should throw the bullies own religion back in their faces.
I tried that on the Dallas Morning News blog, and for all the scriptures I put out there regarding helping others, the least you for others you do unto me, the Golden Rule, the sin of Sodom being pride and not helping the poor, showing special preference for the rich, shouldering one another's burden inevitably resulting in them quoting scriptures regarding sloth and laziness.
It was if their presumption is the sick who needs help only got to that position due to laziness, lack of personal accountability etc.
Funny thing is I don't remember the Good Samaritan asking the person he was helping any such questions.
by definition.
So it is no surprise to get that kind of feedback from people whose version of theological study involves pondering what kind of gun their Jesus would favor.
Even though some versions of religion may be less "negative," their main structural fault regarding irrationality still exists.
That's not a bug, it's a feature - in fact I would say that it's religion's main feature. The religious believer has been trained into lazy and ineffective patterns of thinking. Such a person, having been made to believe in the ridiculous without question can then be depended on to perpetrate the unthinkable.
I disagree.
Religion is a language of symbols, but all languages are made of symbols, spoken, written, and mathematic.
Symbols is the language of the unconscious mind. The unconscious mind can interpret problems, analyze them and give suggestions, but in symbolic form that need to be interpreted.
Religion is one possibility among others for interpretation.
Edison claimed when he was working late into the night on an experiment, and he hit a dead end, he would take a nap on a cot he kept in his lab. He would then often seem to awake with the answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZg1L6C2PI4
religion implies faith. Faith implies the subsumption of logic. As such, it is indeed "irrational" by its very definition.
The symbolic nature of Math has nothing to do with how religion approaches and employs symbols. Math is based on proof, nor suspension of thought... in fact it is the opposite as religious symbols: Mathematical symbols are the representation of thought. In the sense that math is the language, not the end. Where as religion is in itself the end of the language of symbols.
The subconscious/conscious have little to do with scientific production, because regardless where that production comes from it still has to be regimented by scientific rules... which are not dependent on where the idea came from. Edison was not having a "religious" experience... as much as he was simply enjoying the benefits of rest.
I frankly don't think religion deserves to be in the same league as math. Or be able to enjoy any sort of dichotomy with science at all... whatsoever. Religion is not only irrational, but it has been proven wrong time and time again. In fact if there is a constant through human history is that prosecuted thinkers (scientist) get vindicated in the proving of their ideas later on (for which they were prosecuted/ridiculized/etc by religious people)... where as religion (and their assumptions/predictions/concepts) are proven wrong or ludicrous time and time again. With such poor track record (a batting average of 0.0) through thousands of years. I am not willing to give religion the benefit of the doubt, nor consider its precepts to be in the same league, or somehow equivalent to scientific production.
Actually you're confusing logic and reasoning with scientific method.
If you read a book like Malleus Malficarum by Sprenger and Kramer they can be quite logical and rational, building arguments point by point, but their underlying warrant is essentially unprovable, which is acceptable to some forms of philosophy, in which one argues backwards to prove the underlying point, even though it is not demonstrable in any lab or experiment.
That's how you can get any number of unjust laws and legal decisions.
And much of mathematics was developed by mystics like the Pythagoreans, who believed numbers had powers, and in trying to prove their theories developed mathematical formulae still used today in calculations.
Much of the basis for chemistry came from the mystical noodling of alchemists.
You also seem to be predisposing Deity, whether personal or trancedent, as de rigeur in religion, when some forms of religion have no deity at all.
The scientific method is the process.... logic is a tool. Logic defines rationality, ergo lack of it implies irrationality.
Part of the reason why law and philosophy (as in the study of the human condition) are not sciences, it is the fact as you pointed out that they have to either rely on elements which can not be proven... or lead to conclusions which can't be proven themselves. Psychology is another discipline which suffers from the same shortcomings...
I forgot to add in my previous nature, that the employment of symbols in math and religion couldn't be more diametrically opposed in both nature and usage. Whereas math uses symbols as representation of thought, in order to support further thought processes, religion uses symbols to do the complete opposite: to squash thought and trigger primal reactions on its followers.
Ironically enough, authoritarian governments are also big fans of using symbols to squash thought. That is why the soviets loved them propaganda posters, and the nazis had swastikas even in their underwear.
Although I have to admit the comparison of math to religious and dream symbolism is probably too stretched a connection.
You're not taking into account koans like, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" That's an attempt to open thought and perception.
Western religious thought is not the sole definition of what religions can be.
obviously my opinion of religion is biased by my exposure to western religious though mostly. However, religion is a particular fascination of mine and I have done a lot of exploration/study of eastern religious approaches. And I frankly still find the same issues: at the end of the day religious thought/superstition/etc can't be proven.
Even though some of these thoughts/tradition make more sense than wester stuff, they still have the same problem: they rely on circumstantial evidence, personal estimation, or just plain reference to "authority" (i.e. Buddha was this great guy, ergo he must have been right) to support their tenets.
That being said, I can understand the evolutionary benefits of religion for a species with high mental capabilities like ours. As it is an excellent coping and control mechanism. And for some people religion offers a structure and support that allows them to make sense and live their lives. However that still does not provide religion the same level of validation and authority as science. In the same fashion that crack cocaine, even though it helps some people cope with life, is not as authoritative as science either.
I love having these discussions with you YS, and I appreciate that I always end up learning news things. I have to go for din din, I have been stuck in this lab all day and I can't wait to get the f*ck out ;-). Have a great weekend... and stay away from French tobacco (which apparently I have committed some sort of grave offense for knowing about it...)
I should mention also that the scientists of their day could not see the connection between willow bark tea and headaches, nor moldy bread and infections, nor what was called putting people to sleep by having them concentrate on the light of a sword, knife edge or candle light. They considered any effectual cure by midwives through these methods to be coincidence or witchcraft.
Then aspirin was discovered by Felix Hoffmann, and salicylic acid came from willow bark, and then Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin from the mold of bread, and then of course Jean-Martin Charcot proved hypnotism, although it was still steeped with the Franz Mesmer mystique.
I'm off for the night to watch Flesh Gordon fight the evil Emperor Wang of the planet Porno.
then the students can spend their day trying to calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.. :)
The fact they make excuses dismissing the wingnut terrorists on the right says it all. They are the party of reichwing religious taliban that believes in assassination of OB/GYN over abortion, Ku Klux Klan who hate brown skin, and the neo-conservative warmongers. They are all fed with hate from dope addicts and flunk outs on the radio and a propaganda network owned by a non-American.
I think Bob Barr knows that there's a growing problem with right-wing terrorists, aka the Republican base. That's why he opposed the Patriot Act and other Bush-era anti-terrorism legislation. It's clear that these laws may come back to bite these holier-than-thou torturers and murderers on the ass.
I think the perfect metaphor for this was inadvertently written by Tom Clancy, himself a persistent wingnut at least up until the occupation of Iraq. In his novel "Patriot Games" he introduces hero Jack Ryan trying to cross a street in London. Used to American traffic patterns, Ryan looks to the left before stepping out onto the street -- and nearly gets run over by a double-decker bus coming from the right.
America has collectively been looking for a threat from the left at least since the end of WWII. This blind spot is nothing new.
Right-wing extremists (birthers, town-hallers, tea-baggers) are all about peace and love ... just like the Manson Family.
...it must be true.
There was a book written back in the 1930's by Sinclair Lewis. The title is "It Can't Happen Here."
A right wing demagogue leads conservatives to a fascist takeover of the United States.
The premise is that it can happen here. What I'm afraid of is that all the pieces are in place even to Fearless Leader (your pick) Boris (Rush) and Natasha (who else, Coultergeist)
How could believing that Obama was born in Kenya be the Bedrock of the Belief systems of the Militia movements of the 90's that are roaring back, when Obama wasn't even around in the 90's ?
belief systems that shut down and refuse to listen. A for instance of the wingnuts meme that surface every time the republicans are out of power. Not the norm of the sheeple that feed off Fox! These want to engage although they also have a fact system that exist only in their heads.
Seems like a group of citizens planning to exercise their constitutional rights ought to be OK in America.
is in no way shape or form what the founding fathers had in mind when they added the 2nd amendment. In fact, the only purpose of these idiots "exercising" their right is to intimidate other attendees, such acts of political thuggery were not only not included as motivation for the 2nd amendment... but they are diametrically opposed to what the bill of rights stands for.
The bill of rights is not a carte blanche for some people to subdue common sense, in this case... just because they can do it (and that is based on a very iffy interpretation of the 2nd amendment) it does not mean they should do it.
Not a hard concept to understand, unless you need to carry your brain (together with your penis) in a holster.
'the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms, shall not be infringed' is very clear. Why would someone doing something that is very specifically described as a right, not to be infringed, in our Constitution, "intimidate" some citizens? They sound like a bunch of bed-wetters.
Maybe women voting, or black people not being slaves, or freedom of the press, or the right to a fair trial by a jury of peers, "intimidates" some citizens.
'the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms, shall be infringed'
funny things happen when one leaves, conveniently I may add, parts of sentences and context.
In any case, I know where this is going... and your troll bait is all over this thread. For what it is worth, those jackasses "exercising" the 2nd right amendment where doing so too interfere with the 1st amendment rights of the crowd. Your rights end where other people's begin, deal with it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Some part of that you dont understand or have a hard time interpreting? Were they pointing their guns at people and telling them not to exercise their 1st ammendment rights? I wasn't aware that had been happening.
How about it 'tylerdurden', has that been happening? Please enlighten us.
The well regulated militias of the day were made up of citizen soldiers who had to provide their own weapons. That has since morphed into the National Guard which, surprise surprise, doesn't expect Pvt. Doe to bring an M-60 or an M1A1 from home.
The other part of it is "well regulated." The only thing these guys have that is regulated is the lithium they better be taking or we're all in deep shit.
It's time for the 2nd Amendment to be deep sixed. I have no problem with bolt action hunting rifles or shotguns. i don't hunt, but some people get a charge out of killing animals and I wouldn't deny them that. But if they try to tell me they need an AR-15 to hunt, I think their license needs revoking until they learn to make one shot count.
the militias were made up of citizen soldiers but they did not evolve into the national guard, it is part of the organized militia, the unorganized militia(civilian soldiers) is still part of the US per federal law. And several(most?) state laws/constitutions.
Well regulated in the context of the day meant well trained. Not controlled.
I wonder if Mark Potok has ever seen the aerial photos taken of Camp Gruber, a US Military base, a few weeks before the OK city bombing, showing a concealed Ryder truck? Or maybe he can explain why all the agents of the BATF received a warning on their pagers not to go into the office that day, and they were not in the building when it blew up?
...ever heard of Alex Jones?
Who is he?
;)
Thanks for the reply
The first rule of extremist politics.
You do not talk about extremists.
The second rule of extremist politics.
YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT EXTREMISTS!
They talk at length about LEFTY extremists, radicals, etc. It's practically the start of every sentence out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth, for instance. They just never acknowledge that the right is even capable of extremism.
Funny thing. If you want to find websites or blogs from the far left, you google 'far right' and vice-versa.
Are domestic terrorists or extremists?
what is a "conspiracy theory" or not? The corporate owned Main Stream Media?
who said "if you're not with President Bush you're with the terrorists" and have (somewhat) succesfully portrayed an enitre group of Americans (liberal Democrats) as extremists.
President Bush, his administration, and their toadies in the media who said "if you're not with President Bush you're with the terrorists"
... because I assume you and your gun troll were out there "exercising your constitutional rights" and defending the constitution from Bush and his "toadies" with your beloved guns?
the second ammendment has been around since the birth of the Constitution and this country, and Americans have been "exercising their constitutional rights" ever since, regardless of who is President.
... you did not address my post at all. Nice red herring though...
LOL. It is funny how you guys follow the same script.
that your post made any sense that could be addressed. What script is that?
trying to tap dance around the issue that a bunch of thugs packing guns to a political rally is in no way shape or form even remotely related to the context and spirit of the 2nd amendment. No matter how many intellectually dishonest excuses ("exercising rights" LOL, like they need to work out or something) you come up to shield this act of intimidation behind the constitution.
Furthermore the fact that you guys were mighty quiet during the 8 years of Bush's fun and games with the constitution points towards the fact, that your renewed interest for all things constitutional reeks of political opportunism and it stinks of hypocrisy.
In any case, I know where this is going. And I am sure I would have far better luck trying to carry an actual argument with a door knob on this issue. Since you left your troll droppings all over this thread, it is clear you are itching to do what you guys do best. So keep at it, and good luck trying to turn an act of political thuggery... into a sort of constitutional revival.
You are a brainwashed, emasculated pussy who wets his pants at the sight of a gun. Its a contitutional right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed in the great United States of America, deal with it.
do they get me hard. However, the morons who too often carry them--14-year old wannabe gangsters, little-dicked RW pussies who (feel they've) been slighted because a black man got to the WH, cops with axes to grind--do make me nervous.
As I've gotten older, I've learned to try to avoid situations that put me in close proximity to these people. Just because they carry guns does not make me feel that these folks are constitutional scholars, just most often over-compensating p*ssies. I respect weapons; the owners/users in the cases above--NEVER.
Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the founding fathers little-dicked RW pussies, wannabe gangsters, or racists?
I'm trained on the M-16 while in the Air Force, but I believe in keeping the prevalence of guns down.
Afterall Article 1, sec 8 lists among the power of Congress the responsibility to define what weapons are used in the militias, and the training to go with them, but leaves the selection of officers and trainers to the state government.
And Article II, makes the president commander-in-chief of all the armed forces INCLUDING the militias.
Since then militias have been replaced with National Guard units organized on a state-per-state basis, with no corresponding change or addition to the constitutional powers delineated above.
make the president commander-in-chief of the militias, when called into actual service to the United States.
And Article 1 sec 8 lists among the powers of Congress to arm, organize and train the militia when in service to the United States.
Militias have not been replaced, they have been augmented by the National Guard, the unorganized militia is still part of the US, which is why selective service and the draft is legal.
Than that would mean the 2nd amendment only protects the rights to keep and bear arms in a state militia, and doesn't mention one way or another about private ownership, apparently leaving that up to the states to decide for themselves under the police powers as protected by the 10th amendment.
http://www.lawguru.com/dictionary/term.php?id...
(From Black's Legal Dictionary Website; Black's Legal Dictionary is an acceptable tertiary source).
This is from Westlaw on the definition of the National Guard:
The military reserve units controlled by each state of the United States, equipped by the federal government and subject to the call of either the federal or the state government.
So whether that's an augmentation or a replacement of the original state militias is essentially an argument in ignoratio elenchi. But obviously it's not what amounts to something of the nature of gun clubs.
Per federal code.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And from my states constitution.
Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
I agree that its not some gun club, its a very large portion of the US. Including members of the gun clubs.
That's a pool of those able-bodied enough to fight, whether they belong to any service and even don't own any weapons.
In other words, that's the rationale for the draft, not whether or not the government's authorizing personal weapons.
That's why they can't be prosecuted for military crimes, so if they don't report as ordered, they can only be charged with failure to report.
as I stated above that is the legal basis for the draft and selective service registration. Which provides a list of the unorganized militia and allows them to be called up(conscripted),they are a part of the militia by law, the unorganized militia, when they are called up they become part of the organized militia.
And actually it is up to congress whether they can be prosecuted for military crimes, from your link
"1. If congress had chosen, they might by law, have considered a militia man, called into the service of the United States, as being, from the time of such call,constructively in that service, though not actually so, although he should not appear at the place of rendezvous."
So far they have not done so, but they do have the power to do so.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
The other 2 places in the bill of rights, the 1st and 4th amendments that the phrase 'the right of the people' appear and in the 9th where they use similar wording all refer to individual rights. Not collective rights, or rights that can only be exercised by participation of a government body.
The phrase 'the people' appear 3 other times in the Constitution, and may be considered to apply to the people as a collective, but those deal with powers not rights, and in all usages of 'the people' it refers to all people of the government community, not a subset of the people, ie in the case of the 2nd the militia.
Can you explain to me why the framers of the Constitution would of used that phrase to refer in that one specific instance to mean something other than what it means throughout the rest of the document? Rather then lets say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms?
I come from a military family, I am a pretty good shot myself. I grew up around responsible gun owners. Carrying a loaded weapon to a public forum where they are debating HEALTH CARE REFORM is not only irresponsible, but it does not fall under the umbrella of the intent the 2nd amendment was trying to protect.
Luckily, I have a very good sex life... and I don't need a penile extension. Speaking of pussies, you still have not answered where were you while Bush was wiping his ass with the constitution.
were you doing? You still havent answered how anyone demonstrating their second ammendment rights infringes anyone else's first ammendment rights. Who made you the ultimate arbitor of what is responsible and what isn't? Are the right that we have as American citizens under our constitution irresponsible according to you?
Now it turns every right wing troll was protesting the Iraq war even. So now for reals... where you duking it out with your guns, since you are so manly, to defend the US constitution?
The 2nd amendment is the arbiter in itself: Well regulated militia. As I said, I don't like herring. It may be a delicacy in troll land, but here in the real world it only leads to silly circular arguments.
Weren't you just complaining about being insulted, and you make this comment?
... dishonest even in their apologies. LOL
... he already called me a "pussy" before he started complaining about being insulted himself.
it tends to happen, troll minds go into weird states once they have to deviate from their script... usually ad hominem being their safe zone.
I don't normally like to feed the troll... but this one left so many droppings and bait. That it was just funny to see him waiting for someone to reply. It is amusing in a way...
I thought making comments and waiting for replies was the point. And that's certainly not what you are doing.
as I said red herring... circular arguments...
intellectual marvel, Tyler Durden, no one could hope to get the best of you in an argument.
Red herrings is a common term for circular arguments, which in rhetoric is called petitio principii.
Don't complain about your own lack of knowledge, unless you plan on doing something about it.
I should mention that red herring must also go back at least as far as Raymond Chandler in the early 20th century, where it was a police expression for a clue or lead that misdirects an investigation in the pursuit thereof.
Only that keep on reciting an incomplete version of the 2nd amendment over and over and over again. Only to throw an insult when your brain runs out of steam.
Am I supposed to be "impressed" with your level of discourse? You are a "genius" of debate who does not even know basic terms for logical fallacies.
So it takes balls, for a jackass who just told me to move to North Korea, to claim any sort of higher ground regarding your arguments.
'amendment.' Oh I tried so hard not to post that...shit. It just slipped out.
But I like herring.
Every Sunday I have scrambled eggs and kippers with pickled onions, English muffin, washed down with English tea followed by a Gauloises.
back in the old world. Dutch love that crap (Danes and Swedes too)... and for some reason it was the preferred hungover comfort food for my friend. I must say that having to eat that god awful stuff, on an unsettled stomach from way too much alcohol intake the night before... did a number on me.
Who are you referring to? People who believe that the second ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America says that the right of the people to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? That must include everyone that has read it, because if you read it, you can clearly see that that is what is says.
... so I don't really care for herring, much less the red kind.
LOL. So predictable. In any case, since you have not read the constitution lately. Here is the 2nd amendment in its entirety, not just the part that you like:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Since there was no danger to the security of the state, unless you consider people exercising their right to free and open debate an attack on our nation, there is little doubt that what those people were doing was just a show of thuggery.
I thought they were bearing arms, without being infringed. I guess you think they should be infringed, but that would be unconstitutional, I know because I read the 2nd ammendment where you posted it.
That might just lead someone to believe that the founding fathers didn't really think that everyone should carry guns all the time, everywhere they went, huh?
Thats exactly what the founding fathers thought, thats why they drafted and passed the 2nd ammendment, exactly as it is written, stating that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Militias should be well regulated, too.
Sola Scriptura is a Protestant doctrine regarding the reading of Scripture, not legal documents.
So you don't believe felons should be forbidden to own guns and carry them anywhere?
anyone should be able to break the law. If anyone was breaking the law at that protest, they should be arrested.
Who are you referring to? People who believe that the second ammendment (sp)to the Constitution of the United States of America says that the right of the people to(,) "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?
_______________________________________________________________________
You keep truncating the clause in a form of vicious abstraction.
"keep on repeating the same thing over and over again, no matter what, in hopes it becomes true"
repeating "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and maybe you will one day accept that it is true, it's the law of the land, it is our contitutional right. (the second)
As mentioned before, I was Air Force, E-4, Top Secret Clearance, Honorable Discharge. What branch of the military were you in?
No, I wasn't in any branch of the military. I hope that doesn't make me a second class citizen, or take away my rights.
guaranteed. Otherwise, I'd have a big pair of 'em in bed next to me every night, instead of my .45.
aren't guaranteed? I guess the government can take them away any time they please? I wasn't aware of that.
*sonic BOOOM*
indeed...
The NRA touts "responsible gun ownership." How responsible is it to tote a gun outside an appearance by the President? There will be a Secret Service sniper keeping his sights on you all the time, and any trouble, even a firecracker or a car backfire might lead to flying bullets, which could injure or kill other people in the crowd. (I couldn't care a bit less about the gun nut being dropped like a 12-point buck.)
Even the NRA does not support gun ownership by people with a history of mental illness. Shouldn't that rule out thye Teabaggers and Birthers?
is never irresponsible, regardless of where 'the President' is, or what he is doing.
You may want to reconsider that statement. Does the right to free speech give a person the right to reveal classified information? Does freedom of religion give a cult the right of human sacrifice?
As I said, I have no concern for the gun nut. Only for innocent bystanders.
those two actions would be treason, and murder, respectively, which are against the law, and not constitutional rights.
Apparently your analytical skills could use a bit of honing.
Those two actions are illegal because laws have been passed against them. Laws that have been found constitutional, which would seem to indicate that rights are not unlimited.
If the rights of free speech and religion can have limitations, what makes you think that the 'right to bear arms' has no limits?
Very mature. Um, because the constituition says the right shall not be infringed, and the demonstrators were not breaking any firearms laws?
There are no rights to treason and murder in the constitution that need to be limited by constituitional laws. How's that for analytical skills?
But it also says the right shall be regulated.
Even the recent case of Heller v District of Columbia, the conservative activist justices went against over 200 years of court history to say it protects the individual right to guns, but ALSO the state to regulate the guns.
Here in Texas, and elsewhere, they have laws determining the length of blades, so we can't carry sword canes anywhere in public, due to size and concealment. It's illegal to mail many forms of martial art weapons. Why doesn't the NRA complain on these weapon restrictions? Probably because they too are astroturf representatives for the gun manufacturers.
Additionally it wasn't until the Incorporationist Doctrine of the 1940's, based on the XIV amendment, that federal rights even really concerned people, since it was covered by state rights, and state rights are already forbidden to take away rights the fed gives. But the state can always give more rights.
Conservatives hate the Incorporationist Doctrine, because they say it impinges the 10th amendment (conveniently overlooking the 9th), but will turn around and used the doctrine to say the second amendment affects lower levels, with a definition that they themselves provide, despite often having no background in the law at all, and no ability to claim authority on the subject.
...beyond hypocrisy, beneath contempt.
"... Those Obama-hating crazies are not coming out of the woodwork in a vacuum." Or in a belt sander, forklift or blender! I smell Pulitzer!
today? LOL.
besides yourself knows what the hell you are talking about? Trolls and red herring, droppings and thuggery? I think you need help.
It all makes sense to one accustomed to chat rooms and not logged on for just two hours to attempt to disrupt the thread.
When I first signed on several years ago, under a previous system, I simply asked what they meant, not field insults.
disrupt the thread?
so at least he/she is more or less on topic...
do you get paid by the post, or is it a flat salary thingie you got going?
LOL
was getting paid for every ridiculous thing that you said.
I'm off to soak in a tub of Radox, with Pinaud soap and shampoo with a Guiness and a Galoises.
... it is bad for ya.
Did the docs clear that Guiness??
Nein.
I was signed off, but I wanted to add that we already have laws forbidding carrying weapons into federal buildings, where we are often scanned upon entry. That's accepted as legal precedent under the Constitutional provision of Custom and Usage.
The purpose of the law is not to protect the building itself, but the people inside. Some are there by choice, some are federal employees, and some are compelled for voir dire, as defendants, and as witnesses.
So when there's a gathering around a federal official, like a congressperson, who even if they're located in an open field, one can say by their presence that the field become a federal location, and guns can be prevented being carried within, except perhaps by those providing properly licensed security and policing.
demonstrators carrying guns breaking any laws?
√
my comments get deleted, but Tyler Durdens are OK?
knows why citizens demonstrating their second amendment rights is considered 'thuggery', or is intimidating, or how it infringes any other citizens first amendment rights?
why those citizens chose to "demonstrate" that right on a town hall meeting about HEALTH CARE REFORM. In any case, you guys were really not "demonstrating" or "exercising" any right, you were just trivializing it. Since that was clearly neither the the time nor the place. Using the constitution to justify the subsumption of common sense and civic behavior is a show of disrespect against it IMHO.
You have the right to carry the gun. We also have the right to point out that indeed those guys were behaving like jackasses with the only purpose of intimidating other attendees. No matter how hard you try to hide your intellectual honesty, you can not use the 2nd amendment to squash the right of other people to free expression and point the obvious.
For being such a bunch of "tough guys" you sure do love to play coy. In other words... we know... that you know... that we know... that you know... LOL. Now tapdance away my little troll.
my intellectual honesty. Why would I do that? No times or places for exercise of the second amendment are specified in the constitution, so anytime or place should be appropriate. And once again, you have failed to explain how anyone's second amendment 'squashes' anyone elses right to free expression.
I have seen this tap dancing before. It is not creative enough to distract from the fact that you still can't make a clear case on why carrying a loaded weapon to a peaceful debate on HEALTH CARE REFORM is appropriate.
In any case, I bid thee farewell. As far as gun nut trolls, we have seen better in this site, so troll away. For a person who does not even know common debate terms... for you to try to behave like some sort of constitutional interpreter seems to be a bit of a stretch (it took you how many posts until you could bring yourself to write the whole second amendment? LOL). Baby steps first, master basic reading and comprehension skills... and then trying to carry an argument that is not circular or heavily dependent on intellectual dishonesty and name calling. And then we can talk. Until that happens (not really holding my breath)... cheers then.
I really have to be up early so can't enjoy this as much as I'd like.
First,could someone,preferably)O) , tell me where he garnered the info nurses and teachers associations were included in terrorist groups by the Republican party ? You know, If I say, Jupiter is the largest planet in the SOlar system ,it's generally known , so I don't have to document.On the other hand, if I say Ming the Merciless is advancing on Earth, but Flash Gordon can't save us, because Dale Arden drowned him givng Golden Showers , a little documentation helps.On this vein, a lot of people -my self included - asked MS NBC why the cut the video in such a way as to disguise the rootin tootin cowpoke's ethnicity ? Given that he's black (I generally eschew African American-but it has lots more syllables), could one of you explain the reasoning behind cropping the video?
"I wonder if anybody knows why citizens demonstrating their second amendment rights is considered 'thuggery', or is intimidating, or how it infringes any other citizens first amendment rights?"
So you're unarmed and I'm carrying an assault rifle and say, "Yo mama was mighty fine last night, eh?" Quick pop quiz. Do you: (A) Agree or (B) Disagree?
For all the right wingers who think we'll finally just get rid of the liberals, the gays and the illegal immigrants I have two words: French revolution. Those who advocate the guillotine sometimes end up under it.
[banned - site monitor]
Does the 2nd Amendment give everyone the right to carry a loaded firearm into, oh, say, a bank?
unless the privately owned bank, does not allow it.
I carry into my bank when I go.
Login or Register to post comments.