Gun Carrying Protester

[ChiefKN]

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Kostric must have missed a very important event late last year. It was called an election.

Are you talking about Jefferson, because that is who said this. Kostric repeated it.

No doubt that people should be allowed to protest. It is their right. Given the state of incivility in town hall meetings (by both sides) only shows that both groups are reacting emotionally to an issue that warrants rational thought. Something that is not possible when one group comes to the event armed with hyperbole gleaned from Glenn Beck soundbites.

Thank god that they have the liberal's permission to protest. Thank you.

To deny that this is an emotional issue is to really misunderstand what is going on here.

"One group". Again you say they have a right to protest (thanks again) but you then write them off as just repeating someone elses soundbites. I know you believe their opinions don't count because as you say, their side lost the election.

Typical elitest attitude. The people are too dumb to decide for themselves, so they must be mindlessly following some talking head.

It's clearly obvious to those of us who have been paying attention those protesting are more about their unhappiness with the GOP losing the White House than any real concern over liberalism or perceived encroaching tyranny.

More elitest crap. If you were really paying attention, you would have heard that Kostric voted for Ron Paul, who did not run as a republican.

Can we also remember that the democrats did not win with a huge margin? The country is as divided as it was before the election.

You can write off what they are saying and be deaf to their concerns, just then expect the reactions to continue in the spirit of Jefferson's quote.

.

[scfire86]

Are you talking about Jefferson, because that is who said this. Kostric repeated it.

Then what is Kostric's purpose in citing a quote that has as violence at its core?

Thank god that they have the liberal's permission to protest. Thank you.

Your welcome. Especially considering how those of us who expressed our disagreements with Bush were labeled with equivalent amounts of hyperbole.

To deny that this is an emotional issue is to really misunderstand what is going on here.

Their arguments certainly aren't based on any facts. What else is it?

"One group". Again you say they have a right to protest (thanks again) but you then write them off as just repeating someone elses soundbites. I know you believe their opinions don't count because as you say, their side lost the election.

Great. I have no problem with civil protest. That isn't the case here.

Typical elitest attitude. The people are too dumb to decide for themselves, so they must be mindlessly following some talking head.

See earlier soundbite on facts.

More elitest crap. If you were really paying attention, you would have heard that Kostric voted for Ron Paul, who did not run as a republican.

I give Kostric his perspective. I also reserve the right to disagree with it.

Can we also remember that the democrats did not win with a huge margin? The country is as divided as it was before the election.

Really? In 2004 conservatives were claiming Bush's win was a mandate from the people. He won by a whopping 2.5% Given that yardstick as a mandate, Obama won by a landslide.

You can write off what they are saying and be deaf to their concerns, just then expect the reactions to continue in the spirit of Jefferson's quote.

What does this mean exactly?

[ChiefKN]

Then what is Kostric's purpose in citing a quote that has as violence at its core?

You really don't understand Jefferson's quote, do you? It's not about violence and it's certainly not "at its core". You should read it again.

Their arguments certainly aren't based on any facts. What else is it?

Every single argument is not based in "fact"? Wow, you've really boiled this down, haven't you.

Can you be honest about this, or are you just going to take a partisan view of this issue?

Great. I have no problem with civil protest. That isn't the case here.

Okay, you and Jefferson can disagree. I think I'll go with Jefferson on this one, though.

I give Kostric his perspective. I also reserve the right to disagree with it.

This is not perspective. He didn't vote for a republican, so that kind of shoots your theory in the foot.

Really? In 2004 conservatives were claiming Bush's win was a mandate from the people. He won by a whopping 2.5% Given that yardstick as a mandate, Obama won by a landslide.

Why do you always attribute these comments to groups that are not represented in this forum? Is this to avoid adding substance to this discussion? I never claimed Bush won by a landslide or a mandate.

If you think that Obama won by a landslide, then say it. Don't wimp out and blame faceless people who didn't post here.

What does this mean exactly?

Jefferson's quote warns against ignoring the masses, even if they are uninformed (a subjective analysis).

If you ignore them, then expect this sort of reaction.

.

[captrick]

Lets just keep the word freedom and America in the same concept!

Why should anyone have anything negative to say about somebody doing something that is legal and his right to do?
If you have a negative thought about the picture of him with a liberty sign, you do not have any idea what those who have died to protect him had in mind. And you may deserve the right to say you don't like it, but you do not deserve the respect of America's concept!

[DFDMAXX]

I think anyone who claims this unrest to be a reaction solely to recent events has not been paying attention for a few decades.

Hypocrisy in government has gone on for a long time.

Spending our money with little regard to the people who earn it has been going on for a long time as well.

We keep getting the reports of government waste while the government is telling us that they need more of our money. We must be wise with our money but they sure aren't wise with our money. The solution to budget shortcomings is seldom to cut unneeded spending, just tax us more.

Elected officials always find more ways to regulate, but how often do they get out of the way so business can grow and succeed to make profits ( a dirty word these days ) that benefit many? Including the Gov't who gets a cut? Nope, just tax, regulate, and increase fees every chance they get.

The Gov't doesn't realize that they are killing the golden goose. If you get out of our way and let us prosper the country as a whole will prosper.

Now don't go and tell me I'm wrong about regulation and some are needed. I know this. But as the gov't does, it doesn't know when to stop. Why should it stop? They want money and power as well, right? They just take it from those that earn it.

This isn't a recent thing. But all those little nudges, pokes, and prods from the gov't have been tolerated a little bit at a time. Now here comes a big push, and folks push back. Isn't that human nature?

The only thing politics is missing these days is the ferris wheel. But even without it it's still a hell of a circus.

Many other examples can be seen at all levels from local, state and federal government, but we know what they are. And I am tired of it. This reaction has been a long time in the making, and neither of the 2 main parties is innocent.

Now here is the part that is going to make the liberals report me to the whitehouse:

In regards to the man with the sign and the gun, I don't think we can overlook the fact that this world of ours has been governed through the aggressive use of force. History if filled with examples, and some are on display today as well.

Let us not bash the man for stating the obvious.

[scfire86]

You really don't understand Jefferson's quote, do you? It's not about violence and it's certainly not "at its core". You should read it again.

Here is the full context of Jefferson's quote:

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and 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 and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

So how exactly was the blood of patriots and tyrants going be obtained to refresh the tree of liberty? Are all these people going to hanging out at the tree of liberty and have nosebleeds?

Every single argument is not based in "fact"? Wow, you've really boiled this down, haven't you.

Can you be honest about this, or are you just going to take a partisan view of this issue?

Then point me to the arguments that are valid based upon what is in the legislation being proposed.

Okay, you and Jefferson can disagree. I think I'll go with Jefferson on this one, though.

So disrupting meetings to ensure a counter opinion is not being heard is considered civil discourse? I think Jefferson would disagree.

This is not perspective. He didn't vote for a republican, so that kind of shoots your theory in the foot.

He also claims his freedoms are being taken from him. Which ones?

Why do you always attribute these comments to groups that are not represented in this forum? Is this to avoid adding substance to this discussion? I never claimed Bush won by a landslide or a mandate.

If you and I were the only ones on this board that would be true. We aren't.

If you think that Obama won by a landslide, then say it. Don't wimp out and blame faceless people who didn't post here.

See above post. Also, during the Bush years there were several on this board who wrote that if I didn't like what was happening in America (under Bush) I should move to someplace else. I've never said that to anyone except idiotboy, and only because if he left America for another country there is a good chance the median IQ in both places would increase.

Jefferson's quote warns against ignoring the masses, even if they are uninformed (a subjective analysis).

Jefferson was not a fan of the uneducated masses. He was an aristocrat and would hardly be considered a man of the people. One of the many reasons he was an advocate for a strong educational system and founded UVA.

If you ignore them, then expect this sort of reaction.

So you advocate violence based upon an unsubstantiated claim?

[ScareCrow57]

Also, during the Bush years there were several on this board who wrote that if I didn't like what was happening in America (under Bush) I should move to someplace else. I've never said that to anyone except idiotboy, and only because if he left America for another country there is a good chance the median IQ in both places would increase.

America is a Capitalist, Free, Society. The only time anyone suggested you go find a socialist country is when you advocated making America a Socialist Nation.

[scfire86]

America is a Capitalist, Free, Society. The only time anyone suggested you go find a socialist country is when you advocated making America a Socialist Nation.

You just proved my point.

[ChiefKN]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and 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 and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

So how exactly was the blood of patriots and tyrants going be obtained to refresh the tree of liberty? Are all these people going to hanging out at the tree of liberty and have nosebleeds?

You are only considering that one line. There is a whole quote here to consider. It's about context, that which this quote has been read on the news out of.

Are you saying that Jefferson advocated violence? Or did he merely say it's going to happen from time to time?

The quote is about the risk of ignoring the opposition. It is a warning, pure and simple.

He's not advocating violence, he is saying it will happen if the people are ignored.

Then point me to the arguments that are valid based upon what is in the legislation being proposed.

Here are a few that have me worried.
- The erosion of patients who have private pay insurance will cause many healthcare institutions to go bankrupt and will limit access to care. The CBO states that by 2013 that 5% of those with private insurance will migrate to the public plans. Double that just a few years later.

- Increasing those on public health insurance will cause further reliance on the goverment. In addition, there are legitimate concerns about the government's ability to be efficient in regards to costs and the management of something this important.

- This is an extremely costly plan, that will add to the national debt.

- There is still a very active movement proposing a single payor system amongst the democrats. This is socialism, pure and simple. The majority of Americans do not want this.

So disrupting meetings to ensure a counter opinion is not being heard is considered civil discourse? I think Jefferson would disagree.

I'm not saying he would support the manner of these debates, I honestly don't know. However, I can tell you flat out he would oppose these healthcare proposals.

Jefferson's opinion on the "general welfare" clause of the constitution.

“It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect.”
— Thomas Jefferson (Opinion on National Bank, 1791)

He also claims his freedoms are being taken from him. Which ones?

I think the expressed that in his interview. I can't comment more on what I think he meant. That would not be appopriate.

If you and I were the only ones on this board that would be true. We aren't.

You were replying to me. You still really haven't addressed that point. Do you think President Obama won a landslide victory?

See above post. Also, during the Bush years there were several on this board who wrote that if I didn't like what was happening in America (under Bush) I should move to someplace else. I've never said that to anyone except idiotboy, and only because if he left America for another country there is a good chance the median IQ in both places would increase.

I've never said that and think someone who does is an uneducated fool.

Jefferson was not a fan of the uneducated masses. He was an aristocrat and would hardly be considered a man of the people. One of the many reasons he was an advocate for a strong educational system and founded UVA.

I didn't say he was a fan. But he clearly gives those involved in Shay's Rebellion a pass. Basically stating that what they did was justified.

So you advocate violence based upon an unsubstantiated claim?

No, I don't advocate violence, neither does Jefferson or Kostric. This is just an attempt by the liberal media to paint all opponents of the proposed plan as gun-toting crazies.

.

[scfire86]

You are only considering that one line. There is a whole quote here to consider. It's about context, that which this quote has been read on the news out of.

Which is the line used by Kostric.

Are you saying that Jefferson advocated violence? Or did he merely say it's going to happen from time to time?

Depends on what you believe the word "must" means.

The quote is about the risk of ignoring the opposition. It is a warning, pure and simple.

See above post.

He's not advocating violence, he is saying it will happen if the people are ignored.

See above post.

Here are a few that have me worried.
- The erosion of patients who have private pay insurance will cause many healthcare institutions to go bankrupt and will limit access to care. The CBO states that by 2013 that 5% of those with private insurance will migrate to the public plans. Double that just a few years later.

Not if those private entities become more competitive.

- Increasing those on public health insurance will cause further reliance on the goverment. In addition, there are legitimate concerns about the government's ability to be efficient in regards to costs and the management of something this important.

- This is an extremely costly plan, that will add to the national debt.

This is pretty interesting. When the CBO detailed the adverse impacts of Bush's tax cuts, conservatives ignored those forecasts as heresy. Now they embrace the CBO as holy writ.

- There is still a very active movement proposing a single payor system amongst the democrats. This is socialism, pure and simple. The majority of Americans do not want this.

I would discount the opinions of those on Medicare and Medicaid or utilizing the VA system. I am certain that would change the dynamic considerably given how a targeted segment of FreedomWorks (those organizing the disruption of town halls) is seniors.

I'm not saying he would support the manner of these debates, I honestly don't know. However, I can tell you flat out he would oppose these healthcare proposals.

Of course. He was wealthy and could afford to provide for his own health care.

Jefferson's opinion on the "general welfare" clause of the constitution.

Succeeding courts have disagreed. Jefferson should have been more specific in its meaning. Plus Jefferson didn't exactly govern according to the freedoms or role of government he advocated in his writings. As stated earlier, he had strong opinions of freedom yet he was also a slave owner and was by no means an advocate of shared freedoms for women.

I think the expressed that in his interview. I can't comment more on what I think he meant. That would not be appopriate.

Not really. His statements were not even close to any specifics.

You were replying to me. You still really haven't addressed that point. Do you think President Obama won a landslide victory?

Given the context of the Bush victory absolutely.

I've never said that and think someone who does is an uneducated fool.

Yet that is exactly who is disrupting town hall meetings.

I didn't say he was a fan. But he clearly gives those involved in Shay's Rebellion a pass. Basically stating that what they did was justified.

Giving a pass can be construed as tacit approval. Jefferson wrote and spoke strong words leading up to the Revolutionary War. Then went to Paris until the conflict was over.

No, I don't advocate violence, neither does Jefferson or Kostric. This is just an attempt by the liberal media to paint all opponents of the proposed plan as gun-toting crazies.

Given that Kostric was gun toting and spoke in a disjointed manner only helped to reinforce the stereotype.

.[/QUOTE]

[DaSharkie]

Maybe because I'm not unhappy with those I don't criticize.

Like I said Skippy - you only criticize Republicans and conservatives for doing the exact same thing that Democrats adn liberals are doing. You can call it whatever you want. It is still hypocracy. And you know it.

Ain't freedom grand?

It is, but you hide behind freedom like a Frenchman hides behind others fighting for them.

[ChiefKN]

Not if those private entities become more competitive.

Okay, as long as the public funds are structured to be profitable like the private funds. That's the thing, it won't happen, the public funds will then be cheaper and competition will not be fair.

This is pretty interesting. When the CBO detailed the adverse impacts of Bush's tax cuts, conservatives ignored those forecasts as heresy. Now they embrace the CBO as holy writ.

Again, can we deal with the actual topic and not stray off into these non-sequitars?

What do YOU think of the CBO's estimation on these points? I can tell you this, in my industry a shift of 1 or 2% of patients into a public plan will cause a lot of our clinics in urban areas to be closed.

Of course. He was wealthy and could afford to provide for his own health care.

So, you don't like Jefferson. Interesting.

Succeeding courts have disagreed. Jefferson should have been more specific in its meaning. Plus Jefferson didn't exactly govern according to the freedoms or role of government he advocated in his writings. As stated earlier, he had strong opinions of freedom yet he was also a slave owner and was by no means an advocate of shared freedoms for women.

I don't care what the courts have said, that has nothing to do with interpreting what Jefferson would think or do today.

Given the context of the Bush victory absolutely.

So both were landslides, that's what you are saying? I don't know why you can't deal with the last election without referring to the Bush victory?? Bizarre obsession?

Giving a pass can be construed as tacit approval. Jefferson wrote and spoke strong words leading up to the Revolutionary War. Then went to Paris until the conflict was over.

Wow, you really don't like Jefferson.

Given that Kostric was gun toting and spoke in a disjointed manner only helped to reinforce the stereotype.

Totally unfair analysis. The man is not a talking head on a television show and he did pretty good against that moron Mathews. To say he spoke in a "disjointed" way is not fair.

.

[DaSharkie]

Really? I'm sure you can link me to stories of town hall meetings being shut down by angry protestors. Or gun toting individuals bellyaching about tyranny and loss of freedom.

You ought to pay attention more to the discourse. And no one with a firearm disrupted any protest - he did in a much more peaceful manner than most people on either side of the coin did.

The MMA ( as it was called) was signed into law in 2003. There were no protests or outrage of the magnitude we are seeing in the days leading up to its passage. Nor did we ever see the vocal opposition from anyone (conservatives or liberals) over the spending bills signed into law by the Bush Administration via a GOP majority congress. In fact, just one year later, conservatives were extolling Bush for his visionary leadership and pushing him towards re-election. I guess they had short memories on his socialistic agenda and encroaching tyranny.

There were protests, and a lot of angry people - perhaps you might recall the AARP's point of view initially until it caved and said it was "a good start."

Bush pushed a lot of programs people did not like, but he also was not using every Democratic elected official as a stoolie to push a wildly unpopular plan they they admit that they did not read.

People will protest what they want, and no child-like moron incapable of rational though ought to tell them who, when, where, or why they should or should not protest their point of view. Especially because they are choosing to do so now, not when he thinks that they should have. Your hypocracy is deafening - even if you hide behind it by calling it freedom.

Lastly, the status quo with the health care issue in our society is not sustainable, and none of the opposition brings a viable alternative to the discussion. Only hyperbole.

Says who?

[MarcusKspn]

You ought to pay attention more to the discourse. And no one with a firearm disrupted any protest - he did in a much more peaceful manner than most people on either side of the coin did.

Isn't it ironic that the person with the "deadly weapon" was more peaceful and less of a threat than the "peaceful and unarmed" people screaming at their elected officials and pushing each other inside these town halls ?

[ThNozzleman]

Gee, I wonder what you guys would be saying if this had happened a few years ago at an event where Bush the Lesser was present...and the ones "exercising their Second Amendment rights" were Americans of Middle Eastern descent?

[MarcusKspn]

Gee, I wonder what you guys would be saying if this had happened a few years ago at an event where Bush the Lesser was present...and the ones "exercising their Second Amendment rights" were Americans of Middle Eastern descent?

Those guys (arab-americans) probably would have the most reason to carry a gun to protect themselves. Remember all the hate towards that group following the events of 9/11 and even today.

[ScareCrow57]

So how exactly was the blood of patriots and tyrants going be obtained to refresh the tree of liberty? Are all these people going to hanging out at the tree of liberty and have nosebleeds?

Most of the quotes that come from the time this country was founded advocated the violent overthrow of a tyrannical government. The Constitution was written to protect us from over bearing and overly oppressive governments. Governments at all levels have become exactly what they are not supposed to be. Over the last 100 years they have increased taxes, regulations, laws, and oppressed the people. If our idiots in charge continue the people will have no choice but to rise up and revolt.

[MarcusKspn]

Most of the quotes that come from the time this country was founded advocated the violent overthrow of a tyrannical government. The Constitution was written to protect us from over bearing and overly oppressive governments. Governments at all levels have become exactly what they are not supposed to be. Over the last 100 years they have increased taxes, regulations, laws, and oppressed the people. If our idiots in charge continue the people will have no choice but to rise up and revolt.

Germany, with a more recent and violent history, has an interesting clause in our Basic Law:

Article 20:

(1) The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state.

(2) All state authority is derived from the people. It shall be exercised by the people through elections and other votes and through specific legislative, executive, and judicial bodies.

(3) The legislature shall be bound by the constitutional order, the executive and the judiciary by law and justice.

(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to abolish this constitutional order, if no other remedy is available.

Our Basic Law basically calls on Germans to rise up against the state, if said state is trying to infringe upon the Basic Law.

[ScareCrow57]

Germany, with a more recent and violent history, has an interesting clause in our Basic Law:



Our Basic Law basically calls on Germans to rise up against the state, if said state is trying to infringe upon the Basic Law.

Spent 2 1/2 years over there. I want to go back someday. German Beer!! Autobahns with no speed limit. The knock wurst and bratwurst. It was cool stuff.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

Gee, I wonder what you guys would be saying if this had happened a few years ago at an event where Bush the Lesser was present...and the ones "exercising their Second Amendment rights" were Americans of Middle Eastern descent?

If they were legally carrying firearms, and they were acting peacefully and lawfully, I would have reacted the exact same way as I did for Mr. Kostric.