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

[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 or for carrying a sign that has historical references?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 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.......

I believe I did not make that claim. Let me check.

Um. Nope. Charlesfail.

Like Steven stated in crediting you- it appears he was displaying his macho self legally. Which is what this thread is... um... about. Doesn't take away the silliness and political nutjobbery of using Jeffersonian language where it really isn't merited.

Regarding logistical, financial, spiritual, and other things terror-related you're strangely trying to force into this discussion... sure- nobody's disagreeing with you.

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

Everyone seems to want an interview slot. Its going to make me getting airtime on the MSM hard once I come up with some contribution to biomedicine. Unless I tote around a gun and talk all Jeffersonian about the good ole boys taking my guvmint teet away (that I don't currently have btw).

The rotten fruit is being shaken off the Liberty Tree.

[natty bumppo 297]

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?

At a place where the President of the United States will be present. Yeah. I'm not buying the innocent defender of Freedom bit. It may be his right to carry, but it may also be someone else's right to stay alive should the guy have turned out to be another lunatic.

i musta missed that part of the constitution that forbids having a firearm where potus will be present.

I guess that's why there's laws by jurisdiction and security procedures to be followed when a US President will be somewhere.

Out of curiosity- was this guy present when Obama arrived? I don't have audio today so I can't tell.

Please post with case law where an individuals rights are suspended when the potus is present

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

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

So says the leftie retards.

[natty bumppo 297]

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

So says the leftie retards.

can no one answer my question?

I see lots of people answering other issues .. but not answering mine ...

[thepizzadude 26]

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?

Heres and apple and an orange hmmm.....

[natty bumppo 297]

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?

Heres and apple and an orange hmmm.....

and still nobody answers my question ... wow

[thepizzadude 26]

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?

Ummm....yes. Just because he is a "a Middle Eastern looking dude" what are you saying OMG...did you really write this...is it a real question or are you just playing dumb.

[natty bumppo 297]

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?

Ummm....yes. Just because he is a "a Middle Eastern looking dude" what are you saying OMG...did you really write this...is it a real question or are you just playing dumb.

it's a steven question ... what do you expect?

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

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.......

I believe I did not make that claim. Let me check.

Um. Nope. Charlesfail.

Like Steven stated in crediting you- it appears he was displaying his macho self legally. Which is what this thread is... um... about. Doesn't take away the silliness and political nutjobbery of using Jeffersonian language where it really isn't merited.

Regarding logistical, financial, spiritual, and other things terror-related you're strangely trying to force into this discussion... sure- nobody's disagreeing with you.

perhaps you can show me where i said you did use the word violent. no, you can't.....because i never did say it. instead, you're going along with the change of words that steven used and then trying to make something out of it. nor am i the one trying to force anything terror related into this topic - you can blame that on steven for bringing up the subject. i'm just answering his questions.

but again, you'll find fault with me for that somehow.

[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?

At a place where the President of the United States will be present. Yeah. I'm not buying the innocent defender of Freedom bit. It may be his right to carry, but it may also be someone else's right to stay alive should the guy have turned out to be another lunatic.

i musta missed that part of the constitution that forbids having a firearm where potus will be present.

I guess that's why there's laws by jurisdiction and security procedures to be followed when a US President will be somewhere.

Out of curiosity- was this guy present when Obama arrived? I don't have audio today so I can't tell.

Please post with case law where an individuals rights are suspended when the potus is present

Who said individual rights are suspended where the US President is present?

Hint- you did.

Oh snap... yeah... there's something about common sense and protecting an elected official. DUH!

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

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?

At a place where the President of the United States will be present. Yeah. I'm not buying the innocent defender of Freedom bit. It may be his right to carry, but it may also be someone else's right to stay alive should the guy have turned out to be another lunatic.

i musta missed that part of the constitution that forbids having a firearm where potus will be present.

I guess that's why there's laws by jurisdiction and security procedures to be followed when a US President will be somewhere.

Out of curiosity- was this guy present when Obama arrived? I don't have audio today so I can't tell.

Please post with case law where an individuals rights are suspended when the potus is present

Who said individual rights are suspended where the US President is present?

Hint- you did.

Oh snap... yeah... there's something about common sense and protecting an elected official. DUH!

best non answer of the day

and yes, you did say individual rights are suspended:

At a place where the President of the United States will be present. Yeah. I'm not buying the innocent defender of Freedom bit. It may be his right to carry, but it may also be someone else's right to stay alive should the guy have turned out to be another lunatic.

Edited August 13, 2009 by charles!

[HAL 9000 96]

perhaps you can show me where i said you did use the word violent. no, you can't.....because i never did say it. instead, you're going along with the change of words that steven used and then trying to make something out of it. nor am i the one trying to force anything terror related into this topic - you can blame that on steven for bringing up the subject. i'm just answering his questions.

but again, you'll find fault with me for that somehow.

No Charles, this is called using parallel logic. If only you would realize what a potential security threat may arise from... then you wouldn't be meandering the obvious logic here.

[HAL 9000 96]

best non answer of the day

and yes, you did say individual rights are suspended:

At a place where the President of the United States will be present. Yeah. I'm not buying the innocent defender of Freedom bit. It may be his right to carry, but it may also be someone else's right to stay alive should the guy have turned out to be another lunatic.

Hint: ask an appropriate question, get an appropriate answer.

Hmmm... so... do you personally believe someone with a 'spill blood' poster should be allowed, armed, to come into proximity with the sitting US President?

Or are you just being obtuse in your lack of logic just to disagree?

Just curious.

[Ban Hammer 13,369]

perhaps you can show me where i said you did use the word violent. no, you can't.....because i never did say it. instead, you're going along with the change of words that steven used and then trying to make something out of it. nor am i the one trying to force anything terror related into this topic - you can blame that on steven for bringing up the subject. i'm just answering his questions.

but again, you'll find fault with me for that somehow.

No Charles, this is called using parallel logic. If only you would realize what a potential security threat may arise from... then you wouldn't be meandering the obvious logic here.

parallel logic must be hal machine language for put words in other's posts........

best non answer of the day

and yes, you did say individual rights are suspended:

At a place where the President of the United States will be present. Yeah. I'm not buying the innocent defender of Freedom bit. It may be his right to carry, but it may also be someone else's right to stay alive should the guy have turned out to be another lunatic.

Hint: ask an appropriate question, get an appropriate answer.

Hmmm... so... do you personally believe someone with a 'spill blood' poster should be allowed, armed, to come into proximity with the sitting US President?

Or are you just being obtuse in your lack of logic just to disagree?

Just curious.

so much for the 1st and 2nd amendment in your eyes.