I am trying to figure out where the video is of Mathews raking anyone, in fact, in this video he even expressed agreement with the man he was speaking to in this interview. I don't see that the man did anything wrong, he did not appear threatening or even intimidating. I never once saw in the footage him going anywhere near the firearm, even unstrapping it or anything... I am used to seeing people strapping on firearms in these parts, so that is completely normal in this country. The Black Panther guy that was yelling at people and shaking a billy club outside of the polling boothese last election was far more threatening than this guy. It would have been fine if they had been standing there peacefully as this guy was with firearms strapped rather than yelling and shaking billy clubs. Now that is madness.. Yes this is America, where we have the right to keep and bear arms. If more citizens actually did this, the crime rates would drop, there would be less threats of gangs and assinations because the citizens could put a stop to that craziness before it ever got out of hand. If this was an attempt to portray all these citizens that are upset with the policies that are being implemented as an " angry mob" or crazy uninformed birthers and such, it backfired on him pretty bad. All he proved with this interview is that the people are peacefully protesting and exercising their constitutional rights that our forefathers gave their lives to protect. Popinjay, would you like to explain where in this video he raked this guy?
Not sure about that. A billyclub wielding racist vs a loaded gun toting racist? Hmmmm. I could get away from the guy with the stick and possibly survive if he flew off the handle at least.
Many of us own firearms, in this day and age I see no reason to carry one into public myself where many people are gathered (including possibly kids) unless Armageddon happens. The Statement he was making (though it is his right) was hostile, that’s the bottom line. You would have to be an idiot not to get it.
How is this guy a racist?
I never said this guy in the picture was racist; I used it as an example to match her Black Panther example. She made the original connection, not me. I was just replying to what she said.
Then I went on to to talk about the guy in the picture in the second paragraph, and mentioned it was a hostile image. Never once did I connect racism to that picture. Better luck next time twisting what I said.
Maybe someone who tries to mug him or attack him. If the Chinese suddenly invaded. Maybe he carried it for fear of being raped by an old lady.
It matters not the reason, or what he wanted to defend himself from, but what matters is he was not breaking the law and he was executing his rights as a U.S. citizen.
It matters the reason when you hold up a sign like that. I simply have no idea why you don't see the correlation there.
Gun people really don't seem to be too logical here.
I do see you point. However, I think it is invalid and illogical. You base your validation upon personal beliefs - that he was in the wrong for what he did. I base mine upon Constitutional rights.
He was exercising two rights. Simply because they were executed at the same time does not make them invalid or threatening. As I said in the other thread, if it was anything, it was a reminder to Obama of the rights and duties of U.S. citizens set forth in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
I am trying to figure out where the video is of Mathews raking anyone, in fact, in this video he even expressed agreement with the man he was speaking to in this interview. I don't see that the man did anything wrong, he did not appear threatening or even intimidating. I never once saw in the footage him going anywhere near the firearm, even unstrapping it or anything... I am used to seeing people strapping on firearms in these parts, so that is completely normal in this country. The Black Panther guy that was yelling at people and shaking a billy club outside of the polling boothese last election was far more threatening than this guy. It would have been fine if they had been standing there peacefully as this guy was with firearms strapped rather than yelling and shaking billy clubs. Now that is madness.. Yes this is America, where we have the right to keep and bear arms. If more citizens actually did this, the crime rates would drop, there would be less threats of gangs and assinations because the citizens could put a stop to that craziness before it ever got out of hand. If this was an attempt to portray all these citizens that are upset with the policies that are being implemented as an " angry mob" or crazy uninformed birthers and such, it backfired on him pretty bad. All he proved with this interview is that the people are peacefully protesting and exercising their constitutional rights that our forefathers gave their lives to protect. Popinjay, would you like to explain where in this video he raked this guy?
Not sure about that. A billyclub wielding racist vs a loaded gun toting racist? Hmmmm. I could get away from the guy with the stick and possibly survive if he flew off the handle at least.
Many of us own firearms, in this day and age I see no reason to carry one into public myself where many people are gathered (including possibly kids) unless Armageddon happens. The Statement he was making (though it is his right) was hostile, that’s the bottom line. You would have to be an idiot not to get it.
How is this guy a racist?
I never said this guy in the picture was racist; I used it as an example to match her Black Panther example. She made the original connection, not me. I was just replying to what she said.
Then I went on to to talk about the guy in the picture in the second paragraph, and mentioned it was a hostile image. Never once did I connect racism to that picture. Better luck next time twisting what I said.
She did? That's one hell of a leap you made but whatever.
Maybe someone who tries to mug him or attack him. If the Chinese suddenly invaded. Maybe he carried it for fear of being raped by an old lady.
It matters not the reason, or what he wanted to defend himself from, but what matters is he was not breaking the law and he was executing his rights as a U.S. citizen.
It matters the reason when you hold up a sign like that. I simply have no idea why you don't see the correlation there.
Gun people really don't seem to be too logical here.
I do see you point. However, I think it is invalid and illogical. You base your validation upon personal beliefs - that he was in the wrong for what he did. I base mine upon Constitutional rights.
He was exercising two rights. Simply because they were executed at the same time does not make them invalid or threatening. As I said in the other thread, if it was anything, it was a reminder to Obama of the rights and duties of U.S. citizens set forth in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
Speaking of the constitution... In order for you to be justified in "throwing off" your government they would need to be found acting against the constitution - has the current government acted against the constitution? If so, why have you not impeached them yet? You see, you have a system in place to remove tyrants without the spilling of blood, it's in that very document you are defending that gun toting sign waver with - your constitution.
Calling for the blood of politicians because they're introducing legislation that you find unpopular (but is still constitutional) is not something you should be supporting. The threat of violence should never be employed to sway opinion and as much as you want to dress it up "IT'S TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY!" is a threat in the nature that Jefferson intended it to be. Unfortunately, the target of the threat can not be considered a tyrant, so, who is the tyrant? Who is threatening to act against the constitution?
"what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Speaking of the constitution... In order for you to be justified in "throwing off" your government they would need to be found acting against the constitution - has the current government acted against the constitution? If so, why have you not impeached them yet? You see, you have a system in place to remove tyrants without the spilling of blood, it's in that very document you are defending that gun toting sign waver with - your constitution. "what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
To answer your question - no I do not yet believe that. However, if such abuses and usurpations continue, such as tax payer backed bailouts of companies, government healthcare, electronic monitoring, et cetera continue and lead this country to a more socialist style government, then yes, it will be acting against the Constitution and will be going down that road. The Constitution defines the U.S. as a democratic republic - to move away to another style of government is acting against the Constitution - amendments or not.
The only way to move to a more socialist state is by throwing out the Constitution and rewriting it. Either way, attempting to move to a more socialist government or attempting to rewrite the Constitution, will result in an uprising and eventual removal of government officials either by vote, or by force.
It's interesting that those continue to demonize the man with the sign because the quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time" is being taken out of context. I find it interesting that you posted the entire quote because the portion I highlighted in red was what I was speaking of him warning Obama.
This was the funniest thing I've ever seen. Matthews raked this moron over the coals.
This gun guy's deflections, soapbox speeches about liberty, tyrants and tyranny, his inability to explain why he wore a gun to a townhall meeting and nonsense in general regarding the meeting reminds me of a person here who always falls back to that soapbox. His sign fits too, lol.
Given how he explains the gun, I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same person at all. I swear, if it's NOT him they must all read from the same talking points.
What interview were you watching?
Matthews came off like a jerk that didn't believe in Constitutional rights of individuals.
The guy was calm, articulate, and absolutely explained he was exercising his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Obviously you donhj't support the 2nd Amendement and don't think exercising Constitutional rights is a legitimate act, or you wouldn't say he couldn't explain why he wore a gun.
Amendment II
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.
He doesn't have to explain to you or anyone else why he's carrying a gun, his State allows open carry, and he doesn't have a criminal record, and he's not making any threats towards anyone.
But I think you might want to infringe on his rights, which is why you think it's so unexplainable he would exercise them.
Speaking of the constitution... In order for you to be justified in "throwing off" your government they would need to be found acting against the constitution - has the current government acted against the constitution? If so, why have you not impeached them yet? You see, you have a system in place to remove tyrants without the spilling of blood, it's in that very document you are defending that gun toting sign waver with - your constitution. "what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
To answer your question - no I do not yet believe that. However, if such abuses and usurpations continue, such as tax payer backed bailouts of companies, government healthcare, electronic monitoring, et cetera continue and lead this country to a more socialist style government, then yes, it will be acting against the Constitution and will be going down that road. The Constitution defines the U.S. as a democratic republic - to move away to another style of government is acting against the Constitution - amendments or not.
The only way to move to a more socialist state is by throwing out the Constitution and rewriting it. Either way, attempting to move to a more socialist government or attempting to rewrite the Constitution, will result in an uprising and eventual removal of government officials either by vote, or by force.
It's interesting that those continue to demonize the man with the sign because the quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time" is being taken out of context. I find it interesting that you posted the entire quote because the portion I highlighted in red was what I was speaking of him warning Obama.
In order for the "warning" to be taken seriously there needs to be teeth behind it. If you admitted that prospect then you need to recognize that that man with a gun is a serious threat to the people that draft legislation and his threat of violence was intended to alter the bills that they were drafting. That is not democracy nor is it in accordance with the constitution.
"it's time to water the tree of liberty!" is not a question posed for some future date, it's a call to action. Now is the time! and that is based on the actions the current government has taken to date - actions, which may I remind you, that you don't seem to feel is enough to modivate yourself to take the kind of action your fellow "patriots" are calling for.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
- Chris Matthews.. eight minutes of beatdown on a gun toting townyeller -
At what point does he become a "townyeller"?
This is clear indication, to me, that people are starting to use "townyeller" even for people that simply stand quietly outside, hardly even making a whimper. The term is starting to falsely apply to anyone who simply opposes the reform.
Add to the fact that, not only does the man never raise his voice at all, but Chris Matthews yells throughout the entire interview. Who's the "townyeller" now? Riddle me this, Batman.
Clear indication of the left-media being the new Fox. Twisting reason and logic into whatever their agenda or future wants.
Originally posted by Wickersham In order for the "warning" to be taken seriously there needs to be teeth behind it.
The "teeth" are the words I already posted from the Declaration of Independence. Yes, it is a threat of a revolt if they continue down their path. It is, not however, an immediate threat. You, of course, are trying to slant it to your limited view of Constitutional rights and claim the man was a threat simply because he heald a sign and a gun.
A warning is just that - a warning of things to come if they attempt to change the structure of the government and the foundation of the Constitution.
Why is it in an interview Chris always makes people answer with a yes or no but doesn't allow the person to expound on their position of yes or no. I'll tell you why cuz he just flat out sucks at giving interviews. All he is, is an interogator.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
I think he explained why he had a gun. He lives in a state where you can carry a loaded weapon in public. Its the norm for him. He also wants to bring the nation back to the time before income taxes and large federal governments. In that time it was common for people to attend presidential events with loaded weapons. As far as coming up with canned answers, I think that should also be easy to explain. Any plant is going to use canned answers and sound bytes. They aren't going to get on the podium and say, "Hey this bill is 1500 pages and not 1 addresses lowering the costs of healthcare." They are there to take press away from the guy who said that and make people think the opposing side has no real view on the subject matter. This guy was on MSNBC after all. They have no interest in bringing actual arguments against socialist agenda.
You summed it up pretty darn well. Good job!
BTW, I carry a gun too.
So? What's the problem with that OP?
Not a thing. The tree hugging panzies can have my gun why they pry it from my cold dead fingers. They are just mad they can't afford one so they want to make sure no one has one. Socialism at it's finest.
From what I have seen Pop is for socialism, and free handouts so guns are bad. You might be more inclined to be against Socialism if you want to exercise your 2nd amendment rights and that is bad.
Be sure to send your $35 to the NRA to keep Obama out of your gun collection.
This was the funniest thing I've ever seen. Matthews raked this moron over the coals.
This gun guy's deflections, soapbox speeches about liberty, tyrants and tyranny, his inability to explain why he wore a gun to a townhall meeting and nonsense in general regarding the meeting reminds me of a person here who always falls back to that soapbox. His sign fits too, lol.
Given how he explains the gun, I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same person at all. I swear, if it's NOT him they must all read from the same talking points.
Popinjay, just in case the first page concerned you, there is at least 1 other person on this board that sees the problem here.
He had his gun displayed while carrying a sign that referenced the death of tyrants as necessary, near the route of the POTUS. W.T.F do you think he means by it? You'd have to be a god damn idiot not to see the problem here.
He was hiding behind technicalities, insulting other states, and doing everything possible to avoid Mathews question of just what he meant by it. What he meant by it is that he thought that Obama is a tyrant that should be killed. That is why he refused to answer Mathews questions in the spirit that they were asked, he knew what he did was wrong and psychotic. He knew!
This has nothing to do with the right to carry arms, he knew that, and all of you should know that. Hell I am all for it, but this was wildly inappropriate. It was purely to push things even further to the edge.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
Originally posted by Gazenthia He had his gun displayed while carrying a sign that referenced the death of tyrants as necessary, near the route of the POTUS.
Obama should only consider it a direct threat if he is indeed a tyrant.
Maybe someone who tries to mug him or attack him. If the Chinese suddenly invaded. Maybe he carried it for fear of being raped by an old lady.
It matters not the reason, or what he wanted to defend himself from, but what matters is he was not breaking the law and he was executing his rights as a U.S. citizen.
It matters the reason when you hold up a sign like that. I simply have no idea why you don't see the correlation there.
Gun people really don't seem to be too logical here.
I don't think "gun people" ever seem too logical to you is my guess.
I collect them. It's one of my many hobbies. I bet if you came to my house you'd run to your friends talking about the militia man you just met.
Guns are a fabric of American society. Like it or not, that's the way it is. A lot of American's grow up hunting and are around guns all the time. If I see a gun it really doesn't mean a thing to me. It doesn't shock me one bit. Yet I've seen people run screaming as soon as someone pulls a gun out of a case to show it to them. That is completely irrational behavior.
I think you need to look at American history and consider what country you live in. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave. And we have every right to defend that with, as far as I'm concerned, what ever means is necessary.
This was the funniest thing I've ever seen. Matthews raked this moron over the coals.
This gun guy's deflections, soapbox speeches about liberty, tyrants and tyranny, his inability to explain why he wore a gun to a townhall meeting and nonsense in general regarding the meeting reminds me of a person here who always falls back to that soapbox. His sign fits too, lol.
Given how he explains the gun, I wouldn't be surprised if it is the same person at all. I swear, if it's NOT him they must all read from the same talking points.
Popinjay, just in case the first page concerned you, there is at least 1 other person on this board that sees the problem here.
He had his gun displayed while carrying a sign that referenced the death of tyrants as necessary, near the route of the POTUS. W.T.F do you think he means by it? You'd have to be a god damn idiot not to see the problem here.
He was hiding behind technicalities, insulting other states, and doing everything possible to avoid Mathews question of just what he meant by it. What he meant by it is that he thought that Obama is a tyrant that should be killed. That is why he refused to answer Mathews questions in the spirit that they were asked, he knew what he did was wrong and psychotic. He knew!
This has nothing to do with the right to carry arms, he knew that, and all of you should know that. Hell I am all for it, but this was wildly inappropriate. It was purely to push things even further to the edge.
I must be a big idiot to you then. Because I see absolutely NO problem with it. He was breaking no laws and he was quoting one of the founding fathers. At the time the founding fathers were around nearly everyone carried a gun. Do you think they felt scared saying stuff like that? Nyah, they weren't tyrants. They understood personal freedoms. They championed those beliefs.
You're just a bit frightened over something that means nothing. It is New Hampshire after all. A place I would love to find some way to move my ass to. Those people are incredible!!!!!
I also find it incredibly funny that you would call me and others who would do this psychotic. That's freakin' hilarious.
Obama should only consider it a direct threat if he is indeed a tyrant.
He was implying that Obama was a tyrant that should be killed. The fact that you and others are seriously defending what happened is disgusting and frightening.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
Obama should only consider it a direct threat if he is indeed a tyrant.
He was implying that Obama was a tyrant that should be killed.
Do you know this to be 100% fact? By him simply standing there with a sign executing his right to free speech and having a gun while executing his right to bear arms implies that? You read too much into it.
I must be a big idiot to you then. Because I see absolutely NO problem with it. He was breaking no laws and he was quoting one of the founding fathers. At the time the founding fathers were around nearly everyone carried a gun. Do you think they felt scared saying stuff like that? Nyah, they weren't tyrants. They understood personal freedoms. They championed those beliefs. You're just a bit frightened over something that means nothing. It is New Hampshire after all. A place I would love to find some way to move my ass to. Those people are incredible!!!!!
I also find it incredibly funny that you would call me and others who would do this psychotic. That's freakin' hilarious.
You are pulling the same defense that the lunatic was. It isn't technically illegal, and it was only merely a quote from a founding father on that protest sign. Gosh golly gee wiz, what's the problem?
I already told you what the problem was, and the flaw of the presented defense but you continue to ignore it because you can't address it head on. Deflection and attempts to minimize it won't make it go away. Ill go a step further and say that trying to justify this is crazy.
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. Just because you can, and proceed to do, doesn't make you right or it appropriate. Or sane. Just that he can do both of those things does not exclude the possibility that they together had another meaning.
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
He was breaking no laws and he was quoting one of the founding fathers.
Half truth.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
That's the full "founding father" quote.
His personal quote:
If you can't draw the correlation here and think he just "misquoted" Jefferson, I really don't know what to tell you.
It looks like an ear piece in that video. I just checked on youtube for the video, and I have personally confirmed that in fact it is an earpiece, used in law enforcement, some personal security, and in the media.
Notice his right ear closely? Please see this video at 0:56 to 0:58 seconds.
Man, I never noticed that in his ear before. I guess I was always watching him, the gun and the sign.
It does look like that earpiece in the pic you showed, and it does look like the earpieces we used to use, but I'll give the nutter this much leeway; maybe he was deaf and using the most obtrusive and conspicuous hearing aid known to man other than a ram's horn. Or perhaps he was listening to Rush Limbaugh on a AM radio.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nutter and think what he could possibly been doing with that in his ear, that gun and that sign. But given all of those combinations he had and the venue, if I was a Secret Service agent, I'd definitely have him in the back of a van for half a day until I found out everything I could about him.
I think there is another good reason to hold a gun at this townhall when you are opposed to the current healthcare reform. The union that had members who beat up a black conservative only a few days before at a rally were squating as astro-turf for this townhall. That particular union is going to get alot of kickback from the current bill. They have shown violent tendancies to the opposition and a gun is a good method for keeping them at bay.
I think there is another good reason to hold a gun at this townhall when you are opposed to the current healthcare reform. The union that had members who beat up a black conservative only a few days before at a rally were squating as astro-turf for this townhall.
So now the union was potentially looking for a WHITE conservative to beat up to even things out for balance?
He's not a plant or a spying agent as far as I know. That earpiece was being used by about 4-5 others that were with him, as part of the group they belong to, they use them to keep in touch in case anything bad happens, as well as just keeping updated on whatever. It was debunked on infowars.com after they phoned his organization.
Many other groups do the same thing, I'm sure there were plenty more.
Comments
Not sure about that. A billyclub wielding racist vs a loaded gun toting racist? Hmmmm. I could get away from the guy with the stick and possibly survive if he flew off the handle at least.
Many of us own firearms, in this day and age I see no reason to carry one into public myself where many people are gathered (including possibly kids) unless Armageddon happens. The Statement he was making (though it is his right) was hostile, that’s the bottom line. You would have to be an idiot not to get it.
How is this guy a racist?
I never said this guy in the picture was racist; I used it as an example to match her Black Panther example. She made the original connection, not me. I was just replying to what she said.
Then I went on to to talk about the guy in the picture in the second paragraph, and mentioned it was a hostile image. Never once did I connect racism to that picture. Better luck next time twisting what I said.
It matters not the reason, or what he wanted to defend himself from, but what matters is he was not breaking the law and he was executing his rights as a U.S. citizen.
It matters the reason when you hold up a sign like that. I simply have no idea why you don't see the correlation there.
Gun people really don't seem to be too logical here.
I do see you point. However, I think it is invalid and illogical. You base your validation upon personal beliefs - that he was in the wrong for what he did. I base mine upon Constitutional rights.
He was exercising two rights. Simply because they were executed at the same time does not make them invalid or threatening. As I said in the other thread, if it was anything, it was a reminder to Obama of the rights and duties of U.S. citizens set forth in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
Not sure about that. A billyclub wielding racist vs a loaded gun toting racist? Hmmmm. I could get away from the guy with the stick and possibly survive if he flew off the handle at least.
Many of us own firearms, in this day and age I see no reason to carry one into public myself where many people are gathered (including possibly kids) unless Armageddon happens. The Statement he was making (though it is his right) was hostile, that’s the bottom line. You would have to be an idiot not to get it.
How is this guy a racist?
I never said this guy in the picture was racist; I used it as an example to match her Black Panther example. She made the original connection, not me. I was just replying to what she said.
Then I went on to to talk about the guy in the picture in the second paragraph, and mentioned it was a hostile image. Never once did I connect racism to that picture. Better luck next time twisting what I said.
She did? That's one hell of a leap you made but whatever.
It matters not the reason, or what he wanted to defend himself from, but what matters is he was not breaking the law and he was executing his rights as a U.S. citizen.
It matters the reason when you hold up a sign like that. I simply have no idea why you don't see the correlation there.
Gun people really don't seem to be too logical here.
I do see you point. However, I think it is invalid and illogical. You base your validation upon personal beliefs - that he was in the wrong for what he did. I base mine upon Constitutional rights.
He was exercising two rights. Simply because they were executed at the same time does not make them invalid or threatening. As I said in the other thread, if it was anything, it was a reminder to Obama of the rights and duties of U.S. citizens set forth in both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"
Speaking of the constitution... In order for you to be justified in "throwing off" your government they would need to be found acting against the constitution - has the current government acted against the constitution? If so, why have you not impeached them yet? You see, you have a system in place to remove tyrants without the spilling of blood, it's in that very document you are defending that gun toting sign waver with - your constitution.
Calling for the blood of politicians because they're introducing legislation that you find unpopular (but is still constitutional) is not something you should be supporting. The threat of violence should never be employed to sway opinion and as much as you want to dress it up "IT'S TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY!" is a threat in the nature that Jefferson intended it to be. Unfortunately, the target of the threat can not be considered a tyrant, so, who is the tyrant? Who is threatening to act against the constitution?
"what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure."
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
To answer your question - no I do not yet believe that. However, if such abuses and usurpations continue, such as tax payer backed bailouts of companies, government healthcare, electronic monitoring, et cetera continue and lead this country to a more socialist style government, then yes, it will be acting against the Constitution and will be going down that road. The Constitution defines the U.S. as a democratic republic - to move away to another style of government is acting against the Constitution - amendments or not.
The only way to move to a more socialist state is by throwing out the Constitution and rewriting it. Either way, attempting to move to a more socialist government or attempting to rewrite the Constitution, will result in an uprising and eventual removal of government officials either by vote, or by force.
It's interesting that those continue to demonize the man with the sign because the quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time" is being taken out of context. I find it interesting that you posted the entire quote because the portion I highlighted in red was what I was speaking of him warning Obama.
What interview were you watching?
Matthews came off like a jerk that didn't believe in Constitutional rights of individuals.
The guy was calm, articulate, and absolutely explained he was exercising his 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. Obviously you donhj't support the 2nd Amendement and don't think exercising Constitutional rights is a legitimate act, or you wouldn't say he couldn't explain why he wore a gun.
Amendment II
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.
He doesn't have to explain to you or anyone else why he's carrying a gun, his State allows open carry, and he doesn't have a criminal record, and he's not making any threats towards anyone.
But I think you might want to infringe on his rights, which is why you think it's so unexplainable he would exercise them.
To answer your question - no I do not yet believe that. However, if such abuses and usurpations continue, such as tax payer backed bailouts of companies, government healthcare, electronic monitoring, et cetera continue and lead this country to a more socialist style government, then yes, it will be acting against the Constitution and will be going down that road. The Constitution defines the U.S. as a democratic republic - to move away to another style of government is acting against the Constitution - amendments or not.
The only way to move to a more socialist state is by throwing out the Constitution and rewriting it. Either way, attempting to move to a more socialist government or attempting to rewrite the Constitution, will result in an uprising and eventual removal of government officials either by vote, or by force.
It's interesting that those continue to demonize the man with the sign because the quote "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time" is being taken out of context. I find it interesting that you posted the entire quote because the portion I highlighted in red was what I was speaking of him warning Obama.
In order for the "warning" to be taken seriously there needs to be teeth behind it. If you admitted that prospect then you need to recognize that that man with a gun is a serious threat to the people that draft legislation and his threat of violence was intended to alter the bills that they were drafting. That is not democracy nor is it in accordance with the constitution.
"it's time to water the tree of liberty!" is not a question posed for some future date, it's a call to action. Now is the time! and that is based on the actions the current government has taken to date - actions, which may I remind you, that you don't seem to feel is enough to modivate yourself to take the kind of action your fellow "patriots" are calling for.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
- Chris Matthews.. eight minutes of beatdown on a gun toting townyeller -
At what point does he become a "townyeller"?
This is clear indication, to me, that people are starting to use "townyeller" even for people that simply stand quietly outside, hardly even making a whimper. The term is starting to falsely apply to anyone who simply opposes the reform.
Add to the fact that, not only does the man never raise his voice at all, but Chris Matthews yells throughout the entire interview. Who's the "townyeller" now? Riddle me this, Batman.
Clear indication of the left-media being the new Fox. Twisting reason and logic into whatever their agenda or future wants.
The "teeth" are the words I already posted from the Declaration of Independence. Yes, it is a threat of a revolt if they continue down their path. It is, not however, an immediate threat. You, of course, are trying to slant it to your limited view of Constitutional rights and claim the man was a threat simply because he heald a sign and a gun.
A warning is just that - a warning of things to come if they attempt to change the structure of the government and the foundation of the Constitution.
Why is it in an interview Chris always makes people answer with a yes or no but doesn't allow the person to expound on their position of yes or no. I'll tell you why cuz he just flat out sucks at giving interviews. All he is, is an interogator.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
You summed it up pretty darn well. Good job!
BTW, I carry a gun too.
So? What's the problem with that OP?
Not a thing. The tree hugging panzies can have my gun why they pry it from my cold dead fingers. They are just mad they can't afford one so they want to make sure no one has one. Socialism at it's finest.
From what I have seen Pop is for socialism, and free handouts so guns are bad. You might be more inclined to be against Socialism if you want to exercise your 2nd amendment rights and that is bad.
Be sure to send your $35 to the NRA to keep Obama out of your gun collection.
<imgsrc="http://files1.guildlaunch.net/guild/library/86975/Black_Fire.jpg">;
<ahref="http://profile.xfire.com/aetiuslonginus"><img src="http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/sh/type/2/aetiuslonginus.png"; width="450" height="34" /></a>
Popinjay, just in case the first page concerned you, there is at least 1 other person on this board that sees the problem here.
He had his gun displayed while carrying a sign that referenced the death of tyrants as necessary, near the route of the POTUS. W.T.F do you think he means by it? You'd have to be a god damn idiot not to see the problem here.
He was hiding behind technicalities, insulting other states, and doing everything possible to avoid Mathews question of just what he meant by it. What he meant by it is that he thought that Obama is a tyrant that should be killed. That is why he refused to answer Mathews questions in the spirit that they were asked, he knew what he did was wrong and psychotic. He knew!
This has nothing to do with the right to carry arms, he knew that, and all of you should know that. Hell I am all for it, but this was wildly inappropriate. It was purely to push things even further to the edge.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
Obama should only consider it a direct threat if he is indeed a tyrant.
It matters not the reason, or what he wanted to defend himself from, but what matters is he was not breaking the law and he was executing his rights as a U.S. citizen.
It matters the reason when you hold up a sign like that. I simply have no idea why you don't see the correlation there.
Gun people really don't seem to be too logical here.
I don't think "gun people" ever seem too logical to you is my guess.
I collect them. It's one of my many hobbies. I bet if you came to my house you'd run to your friends talking about the militia man you just met.
Guns are a fabric of American society. Like it or not, that's the way it is. A lot of American's grow up hunting and are around guns all the time. If I see a gun it really doesn't mean a thing to me. It doesn't shock me one bit. Yet I've seen people run screaming as soon as someone pulls a gun out of a case to show it to them. That is completely irrational behavior.
I think you need to look at American history and consider what country you live in. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave. And we have every right to defend that with, as far as I'm concerned, what ever means is necessary.
Popinjay, just in case the first page concerned you, there is at least 1 other person on this board that sees the problem here.
He had his gun displayed while carrying a sign that referenced the death of tyrants as necessary, near the route of the POTUS. W.T.F do you think he means by it? You'd have to be a god damn idiot not to see the problem here.
He was hiding behind technicalities, insulting other states, and doing everything possible to avoid Mathews question of just what he meant by it. What he meant by it is that he thought that Obama is a tyrant that should be killed. That is why he refused to answer Mathews questions in the spirit that they were asked, he knew what he did was wrong and psychotic. He knew!
This has nothing to do with the right to carry arms, he knew that, and all of you should know that. Hell I am all for it, but this was wildly inappropriate. It was purely to push things even further to the edge.
I must be a big idiot to you then. Because I see absolutely NO problem with it. He was breaking no laws and he was quoting one of the founding fathers. At the time the founding fathers were around nearly everyone carried a gun. Do you think they felt scared saying stuff like that? Nyah, they weren't tyrants. They understood personal freedoms. They championed those beliefs.
You're just a bit frightened over something that means nothing. It is New Hampshire after all. A place I would love to find some way to move my ass to. Those people are incredible!!!!!
I also find it incredibly funny that you would call me and others who would do this psychotic. That's freakin' hilarious.
He was implying that Obama was a tyrant that should be killed. The fact that you and others are seriously defending what happened is disgusting and frightening.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
He was implying that Obama was a tyrant that should be killed.
Do you know this to be 100% fact? By him simply standing there with a sign executing his right to free speech and having a gun while executing his right to bear arms implies that? You read too much into it.
You are pulling the same defense that the lunatic was. It isn't technically illegal, and it was only merely a quote from a founding father on that protest sign. Gosh golly gee wiz, what's the problem?
I already told you what the problem was, and the flaw of the presented defense but you continue to ignore it because you can't address it head on. Deflection and attempts to minimize it won't make it go away. Ill go a step further and say that trying to justify this is crazy.
Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should. Just because you can, and proceed to do, doesn't make you right or it appropriate. Or sane. Just that he can do both of those things does not exclude the possibility that they together had another meaning.
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
Half truth.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
That's the full "founding father" quote.
His personal quote:
If you can't draw the correlation here and think he just "misquoted" Jefferson, I really don't know what to tell you.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Half truth.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
That's the full "founding father" quote.
His personal quote:
If you can't draw the correlation here and think he just "misquoted" Jefferson, I really don't know what to tell you.
It looks like an ear piece in that video. I just checked on youtube for the video, and I have personally confirmed that in fact it is an earpiece, used in law enforcement, some personal security, and in the media.
Notice his right ear closely?
Please see this video at 0:56 to 0:58 seconds. www.youtube.com/watch
It does look like that earpiece in the pic you showed, and it does look like the earpieces we used to use, but I'll give the nutter this much leeway; maybe he was deaf and using the most obtrusive and conspicuous hearing aid known to man other than a ram's horn. Or perhaps he was listening to Rush Limbaugh on a AM radio.
I don't want to sound like a conspiracy nutter and think what he could possibly been doing with that in his ear, that gun and that sign. But given all of those combinations he had and the venue, if I was a Secret Service agent, I'd definitely have him in the back of a van for half a day until I found out everything I could about him.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I think there is another good reason to hold a gun at this townhall when you are opposed to the current healthcare reform. The union that had members who beat up a black conservative only a few days before at a rally were squating as astro-turf for this townhall. That particular union is going to get alot of kickback from the current bill. They have shown violent tendancies to the opposition and a gun is a good method for keeping them at bay.
So now the union was potentially looking for a WHITE conservative to beat up to even things out for balance?
"TO MICHAEL!"
He's not a plant or a spying agent as far as I know. That earpiece was being used by about 4-5 others that were with him, as part of the group they belong to, they use them to keep in touch in case anything bad happens, as well as just keeping updated on whatever. It was debunked on infowars.com after they phoned his organization.
Many other groups do the same thing, I'm sure there were plenty more.
I think many people are forgetting that this is New Hampshire. It's no Texas, but it's definitely different from other states.
New Hampshire's official motto is "Live Free or Die". Does that sum it up for you all? It should.