Gun-Nut Outside Obama Townhall Linked to GOP 'Stop ObamaCare' Effort

[Ban Hammer 13,368]

oh yes, heaven forbid someone is exercising their constitution guaranteed rights and not breaking any laws, yet is subjected to being called a gun nut and worse.

What would happen if a person was hanging just outside of a military base, on private property carrying a gun and a sign that endorsed terrorism? Would you say he's just exercising his constitutional right or would he be posing as a potential threat?

gonna charge him as guilty until proven innocent? or a with a thought crime? or for carrying a sign that has historical references?

So a Middle Eastern looking dude, legally carrying a registered gun and hanging just outside of a military base with a sign that advocates the violent overthrow of our government would just be exercising his constitutional rights?

According to Charles' last post (#17), its suggested that its OK.

nice change of words there..........

and no, i didn't suggest any such thing. time for your daily reboot.

Same logic. A rebuttal of an argument mentioning that a civilian with a weapon in presence of the POTUS as a potential threat by mentioning its absence from the US Constitution isn't really clear and suggests something you may not actually condone.

That's why I'd like to know if the guy was around when Obama was present. I think we can all agree that a security threat to a POTUS is a possibility any day and age.

no, not the same logic. one can support terrorism and not be calling for the violent overthrow of the us government. you fail.

Edited August 12, 2009 by charles!

[Danno 1,228]

And at the time of this news report, Obamer wasn't even IN THE STATE yet.

[HAL 9000 96]

oh yes, heaven forbid someone is exercising their constitution guaranteed rights and not breaking any laws, yet is subjected to being called a gun nut and worse.

What would happen if a person was hanging just outside of a military base, on private property carrying a gun and a sign that endorsed terrorism? Would you say he's just exercising his constitutional right or would he be posing as a potential threat?

gonna charge him as guilty until proven innocent? or a with a thought crime? or for carrying a sign that has historical references?

So a Middle Eastern looking dude, legally carrying a registered gun and hanging just outside of a military base with a sign that advocates the violent overthrow of our government would just be exercising his constitutional rights?

According to Charles' last post (#17), its suggested that its OK.

nice change of words there..........

and no, i didn't suggest any such thing. time for your daily reboot.

Same logic. A rebuttal of an argument mentioning that a civilian with a weapon in presence of the POTUS as a potential threat by mentioning its absence from the US Constitution isn't really clear and suggests something you may not actually condone.

That's why I'd like to know if the guy was around when Obama was present. I think we can all agree that a security threat to a POTUS is a possibility any day and age.

no, not the same logic. one can support terrorism and not be calling for the violent overthrow of the us government. you fail.

try that with a pointing finger just to get further away from the argument then.

Don't know where your brain is at the moment, but my logic involves:

1. Deadly weapon carried by someone where rational arguments are lacking

2. Presence of a potential target

Like I said, the dude's ironically un-Jeffersonian reference using Jefferson is a suggested reference to violence.

If you want to discuss the tangential (to this topic) subtleties of supporting terrorism via non-violent means you're welcome to do so but do remember there are laws regulating that too.

And at the time of this news report, Obamer wasn't even IN THE STATE yet.

thanks Danno, so we can assume this guy was nowhere near your President?

[Heracles 417]

A few months ago I remember arguing with someone, forgot who, about the types of guns they had at the time the constitution was written. That at the time they would not have fathomed 18 shooters or machine guns, therefore, to say these modern guns are justified is moronic. This person then challenged me on what guns they did have, which U could not answer. Surprise Surprise mf, I took a photo of the the guuuuns during my visit to George Washington's house, at the museum.

Guess what clown, whoever you are, single f-n shooter. Which took a while to load and fire too might I add. Since they used cannons too during the war, can I keep one of those too? just in case the queen invades and all.

Edited August 13, 2009 by haza

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And at the time of this news report, Obamer wasn't even IN THE STATE yet.

thanks Danno, so we can assume this guy was nowhere near your President?

You mean that Kenyan in the WH, right?

[Peikko 1,575]

Waving a gun around is acceptable and responsible gun owner behaviour today is it? Duly noted.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Waving a gun around is acceptable and responsible gun owner behaviour today is it? Duly noted.

To be fair, Charles stated that would NOT be acceptable behavior.

In this instance, he was only in possession of the gun in a totally legal manner.

[Ban Hammer 13,368]

oh yes, heaven forbid someone is exercising their constitution guaranteed rights and not breaking any laws, yet is subjected to being called a gun nut and worse.

What would happen if a person was hanging just outside of a military base, on private property carrying a gun and a sign that endorsed terrorism? Would you say he's just exercising his constitutional right or would he be posing as a potential threat?

gonna charge him as guilty until proven innocent? or a with a thought crime? or for carrying a sign that has historical references?

So a Middle Eastern looking dude, legally carrying a registered gun and hanging just outside of a military base with a sign that advocates the violent overthrow of our government would just be exercising his constitutional rights?

According to Charles' last post (#17), its suggested that its OK.

nice change of words there..........

and no, i didn't suggest any such thing. time for your daily reboot.

Same logic. A rebuttal of an argument mentioning that a civilian with a weapon in presence of the POTUS as a potential threat by mentioning its absence from the US Constitution isn't really clear and suggests something you may not actually condone.

That's why I'd like to know if the guy was around when Obama was present. I think we can all agree that a security threat to a POTUS is a possibility any day and age.

no, not the same logic. one can support terrorism and not be calling for the violent overthrow of the us government. you fail.

try that with a pointing finger just to get further away from the argument then.

Don't know where your brain is at the moment, but my logic involves:

1. Deadly weapon carried by someone where rational arguments are lacking

2. Presence of a potential target

Like I said, the dude's ironically un-Jeffersonian reference using Jefferson is a suggested reference to violence.

If you want to discuss the tangential (to this topic) subtleties of supporting terrorism via non-violent means you're welcome to do so but do remember there are laws regulating that too.

and of course, everyone who has a gun is a terrorist too in your book.

heaven forbid someone exercise their constitutional guaranteed rights around the left.

regarding the support of terrorism, one could support palestinian terrorist acts against israel, for an example, of supporting terrorism, which does not include advocating the violent overthrow of the us government. that obviously escaped you.......

[Ban Hammer 13,368]

Waving a gun around is acceptable and responsible gun owner behaviour today is it? Duly noted.

To be fair, Charles stated that would NOT be acceptable behavior.

In this instance, he was only in possession of the gun in a totally legal manner.

imagine that, mc reading things that's not there.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Waving a gun around is acceptable and responsible gun owner behaviour today is it? Duly noted.

To be fair, Charles stated that would NOT be acceptable behavior.

In this instance, he was only in possession of the gun in a totally legal manner.

imagine that, mc reading things that's not there.

[alienlovechild 75]

thanks Danno, so we can assume this guy was nowhere near your President?

The gun toting guy wasn't around when Obama showed up but he did get airtime for an interview on MSNBC.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Personal insults and attacks are a violation of TOS. Cool the level of intensity, people, you're getting very combative. You can make your points without insulting each other.

Offending posts have been removed

Edited August 13, 2009 by Kathryn41

[Danno 1,228]

oh yes, heaven forbid someone is exercising their constitution guaranteed rights and not breaking any laws, yet is subjected to being called a gun nut and worse.

What would happen if a person was hanging just outside of a military base, on private property carrying a gun and a sign that endorsed terrorism? Would you say he's just exercising his constitutional right or would he be posing as a potential threat?

gonna charge him as guilty until proven innocent? or a with a thought crime? or for carrying a sign that has historical references?

So a Middle Eastern looking dude, legally carrying a registered gun and hanging just outside of a military base with a sign that advocates the violent overthrow of our government would just be exercising his constitutional rights?

According to Charles' last post (#17), its suggested that its OK.

nice change of words there..........

and no, i didn't suggest any such thing. time for your daily reboot.

Same logic. A rebuttal of an argument mentioning that a civilian with a weapon in presence of the POTUS as a potential threat by mentioning its absence from the US Constitution isn't really clear and suggests something you may not actually condone.

That's why I'd like to know if the guy was around when Obama was present. I think we can all agree that a security threat to a POTUS is a possibility any day and age.

no, not the same logic. one can support terrorism and not be calling for the violent overthrow of the us government. you fail.

try that with a pointing finger just to get further away from the argument then.

Don't know where your brain is at the moment, but my logic involves:

1. Deadly weapon carried by someone where rational arguments are lacking

2. Presence of a potential target

Like I said, the dude's ironically un-Jeffersonian reference using Jefferson is a suggested reference to violence.

If you want to discuss the tangential (to this topic) subtleties of supporting terrorism via non-violent means you're welcome to do so but do remember there are laws regulating that too.

And at the time of this news report, Obamer wasn't even IN THE STATE yet.

thanks Danno, so we can assume this guy was nowhere near your President?

I think we can do more than assume.

By the way, whats with the "Your President" part?

Do you think I don't claim Obamer as "My" president?

He's absolutely my President.

You can't disown your President anymore than you can your father.

Some people are shitty Fathers and some people are shitty Presidents, you don't have to follow their poor example but you can't deny who they are to you.

[Danno 1,228]

By the way.. what did this guy do that made him a Gun-Nut?

Granted, to libs just possessing a gun in public is reason enough to be considered a "gun-nut".

[HAL 9000 96]

And at the time of this news report, Obamer wasn't even IN THE STATE yet.

thanks Danno, so we can assume this guy was nowhere near your President?

You mean that Kenyan in the WH, right?

Barry what's his name. That guy.