"change" is growing imminent.

the silent majority is awakening and is no longer silent.

everything that is wrong with America has been authorized by congress... and most of us are realizing that.

he promised change

and i think it is coming soon... very soon.

we must remember, Revolution is sometimes a necessary thing

Well, if the right wingers want to keep up with the left wingers, they better hurry up.

After all the panic and BS that was talked and reported about right wing extremists, the FBI put an American on its Most Wanted Terrorist List.

Well, and guess what his politcal alignment happens to be? :D


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-sa...st-wanted-list

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm

all of that aside.

the political divisions in this nation are stronger and steeper than they have been in quite a long time

Its called Hysteria. If something bad happens it makes it easier for the nuts on either side to pass insane laws.

Case in point the laws after 9/11.

Have you ever faced an M1 national guard tank?

I will say the same thing I say to all the nuts in my opinion who dream of armed revolution. The British had crappy muskets. (Even going as far as gutting a group of breechloading riflemen a design that refined could have won the war) The National Guard has tanks to fight against nutjobs thinking they are "liberating" the populace.

There is no such thing as revolution. This is NOT the colonial era.

BTW your posts gives ammo to anti-gun nuts in my opinion. Just saying.

zach,

take my post however you will.

i have not injected my opinion.

I only pointed out the growing section of society which is dissatisfied with congress.

i didnt say "armed revolution"

i just said revolution...

in a democracy such as our own, revolution comes in the form of ballots... not "crappy muzzle loaders".

I'm not delusional. i said nothing about fighting anyone... nor did i once mention tanks, or guns.

i dropped the "R" word - and your psyche ran to thoughts of fighting against tanks.

viva la revolution! vote in 2010

I have always liked this quote:


This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.


Care to guess who said it?

Lincoln. Which was loosely ironic.

This is a local story for me, living in the phoenix metro area so I've got a different perspective on this.

1) He was not the only armed person at this meeting. He was the one the media focused on, but there were dozens others also armed (although not quite as explicitly as he was). The person mentioned in particular I believe was the only one with a rifle (the others mostly just had pistols).

2) His weapons were in plain sight and not held in any kind of threatening manner. In Arizona law that is legal. You are allowed to carry a weapon in plain sight as you wish (with a couple of minor exceptions) as long as it is in plain sight.

3) They were there to protest against obama and to take up their message of 2nd amendment gun rights. Perhaps not the best way of doing it, but I applaud them for having the balls to do so. I also think that by doing so and there not having been an incident shows just what gun rights advocates have been saying all along, that you are in no more danger by allowing guns then you are if they are banned.

Trust me if there was someone there who planned to harm the pres it would be the person you didn't know was armed. If you go back in history to all of assassination attempts do you really think if guns had been banned that they would have been stopped/caught? Do you think a gun ban would have stopped lee harvey oswald? Would it have prevented booth from shooting lincoln? Or even if you want to talk about something a bit more modern, how about the assassination attempt on Reagan's life?

The common thread through all of these is that the shooter concealed his weapon prior to the attack. No gun ban is going to stop that.

That is not the issue here. The issue is the attention is on HIM and not the potential one for harm.

As for balls. If you have to come packing that much heat you've got little tiny ones in my view. And seeing as even a basic understanding of the states gun laws and the second amendment meant he could not be touched. What makes that "brave"?

He was not brave he was a media whore in my opinion. Saw the brewhaha over the pistol packing protester and wanted to oneup him in front of the cameras.

None of those armed citizens were in any way threatening or aggressive. If simple lawful possession is enough to cause hysteria then they're gonna do what they're gonna do anyways whether people carry firearms in the vicinity of public officials or not. Better to let them get hysterical and maybe overplay their hand than slowly squeeze the RKBA out of us.

Which again is the most likely reason for him being there in the first place. To avert attention away from the subject at hand.

It worked wonderfully.

What was the reason for the protest again?

The thugs diddn't "overplay" their hand when they rammed through the Patriot Act at record speed through congress.

Never NEVER underestimate what hysteria can do to a populace. Failure to understand that ended up with insane laws and insane policies enacted before. (And no not just in the Bush years)

Of course hopefully the worst that will come of this is every little balled copycat will want to come packing to show what a so called badass second amendment defender he/she is.

Youve got my head spinning on this one.

Did he take attention away from healthcare or did he create controversy to stir up 2nd amendment talk?

Both actually thats why its so brilliant.