« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Activist Who Staged Gun Interview At Obama Event Was Prominent Defender Of '90s Militia
And in an interview today with TPMmuckraker, Hancock said he still believes the Viper Militia case was "manufactured" by the same government that manufactured Waco and lied to its people about 9/11.
The federal government initially accused the Arizona Viper Militia of plotting to blow up federal buildings, which the twelve-member group cased on videotape.
In July 1996, after a grand jury indicted the suspects, federal agents "seized about 90 high-powered rifles and hundreds of pounds of a bomb-making compound from the shabby bungalow of a man whom officials identified as the ordnance specialist of a local paramilitary group," the New York Times reported at the time.
Hancock, who in recent years designed the famous "Ron Paul rEVOLution" graphic, was an oft-quoted defender of the militia members. The tapes of the government buildings, he said at the time, were purely "educational."
"They don't have criminal records," another press account quoted Hancock, who knew all twelve militia members, as saying. "They just like their guns. And in Arizona, gosh darn it, that's normal."
Reached by TPMmuckraker at his home in Arizona today, Hancock said he continued to believe the Viper Militia case was a fraud.
"I was good friends with Dean Pleasant, one of the guys that did five and half years," Hancock said, who added the entire case was "made up."
"I've been feeling this coming again," he continued. "It's the same people. It's Rahm Emanuel, it's Janet Napolitano. It's Hillary Clinton. All these were the same people that were doing it back then."
Napolitano, who later became Arizona governor and is now secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, was the prosecutor in the Viper Militia case.
"This militia scare is what got them their crime ban. It was all manufactured," said Hancock, scoffing at the term "White Al Qaeda," which he said he's been seeing in the local press.
Late 8/19/09 Update: More on the Viper Militia here.
Josh
Zachary
The Viper Flag
http://www.mariettapa.com/images/viperflag.jpg
August 18, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice photoshop job, but entirely inauthentic. Among its own members, the name used was the Viper TEAM. The only people who used the term "Viper MILITIA" were the government and their lamestream media lapdogs.
August 20, 2009 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Problem being, of course, that the FAKE "militia" bowel movement also referred to them as "militia". It is necessary that they do so in order for them to be "legal" in accordance with their anti-Constitutional pseudo-law gibberish.
"rebel yell": You dumb-asses already lost once, and this is one of the reasons:
"US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel invasion."
In short: they're ain't no "right of revolution".
In addition, the Constitution also includes limitations on the STATES -- including a prohibition against them forming "confederacies".
Clue: Being stupid isn't smart.
And a bit more of the actual Founders/Framers view: in January, 1776, Massachusetts-Bay repealed and reenacted their "Militia Act," which was first enacted in 1629/30 with the founding of the colony.
That same reality held for all the Original Thirteen (Fourteen, actually): the LEGITIMATE militia was UNDER the rule of law, NOT in spite of it, because the Founders were FOR civilian gov't and AGAINST armed coups against same.
Those who, such as the Viper fools, and the FAKE "militia" movement, formed private standing armies/"militias," were characterized by the Founders/Framers as "common criminals".
Becaue the Founders/Framers wree for "ordered liberty" -- liberty WITHIN the law, NOT in spite of it.
August 20, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Viper Flag.
Gee, where I have seen that lately? There is no way President Obama can EVER satisfy there people. Forget them, tell the Blue Dogs to get in line, and pass real health reform by reconciliation if necessary.
Time for a little LBJ arm-twisting
August 18, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So WTF is the Secret Service doing???
August 18, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much control is Secret Service allowed outside the immediate venue and how much does the White House have control over their security teams' visibility? In the meantime the blogs should keep trying to push these bios and images of wackjobs into the MSM...if the public can learn to connote tea-baggers with these fringe sects then the sooner the death throes of a larger retarding force of America, i.e. the GOP. Take advantage of their incitation in order to frame their ugliness. But I pray the security teams are there in full readiness if one of those don't-tread-on-me anarchist unholsters a gun out or pulls the subautomatic over their shoulder.
August 18, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
& I am as afraid for innocents in the crowd than I am for the President...these seditionists are obviously easily provoked and would target a pro-Obama figure to fan fires of their own notoriety.
August 18, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly right, dtr. These nutjobs will never get close to Obama (hopefully, fingers-crossed - I still have 100%+++ faith in the Secret Service guys).
It's the innocents on the streets that will end up shedding blood.
Irony - the innocents will be shedding their blood by excercising their democratic rights...just what these right wing whackjobs are shooting to preserve.
And when the shooting begins and the blood flows.....the networks will be whooping it up with joy!!! Yes - ALL of them.
August 18, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you kidding? You mean like they protected Reagan and RFK, to say nothing of JFK?
We need to wake up! These guys are heavily armed brownshirts, and a HUGE danger to the President. These guys and their organizations need to be shut down and kept off the streets with their weapons NOW. This is not an issue of freedom of speech or assembly--they are presenting an armed, organized threat to the President and citizens. Congress needs to ban ownership of the assault-type weapons many of these guys cart around, as well as all but target pistols.
Call your congresspeople's offices and demand laws that keep these gun nuts FAR away from Presidential appearances--off the streets entirely, in fact. And laws that ban possession of most of these guns in the first place.
August 18, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way they protected JFK? Watch this chilling video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8
Like the guy in Godfather who woke up with his horse's head in bed with him. Protection is only as good as those in charge want it to be.
August 19, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
My fear is that this is all an attempt to provoke the government to crack down on these people so the crazies will feel they have justification to pull of a heinous attack against the homeland. They are deliberately provoking the secret service and FBI in hopes that they can claim they were justified in their retaliation against whatever crack down occurs.
August 19, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid you are right about that.
August 19, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
These are the loons who praise Tim McVeigh as a hero -- though not as publicly as the several days following the OK City bombing.
And these loons are capable of the same kinds of attacks on democracy. The difference is that they are more organized now than they were then, and they've changed a few code words. Now it's about "self-ownership," instead of "soevereign citizen". Still as full of shit as ever.
Still spewing the saem old pseudo-law. But no emboldened by Scalia's "Heller" activism.
August 19, 2009 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you had said just what these right wing whackjobs CLAIM they are shooting to preserve you would have been closer to the truth.
August 19, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
dtr, that is my fear. I had to put away a little blog on this because every other word was an obscenity.
I think there is more than just a cause for concern as far as My President; but I also fear for the well being of other Congressional Representatives.
But in the end, it will me fred and wilma and their baby who are going to get hit by a bullet first.
August 19, 2009 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're spot on, dtr. These dangerous kooks, as well as their not-so-dangerous hangers-on, should be sitting ducks for marginalization from mainstream sympathies. Nixon did exactly that with the unshaven radicals of the early 1970s, unfortunately with much success.
The public may eventually reach this conclusion by itself, though it would be a pleasant surprise if Democrats could bring themselves to demonize actual demons. If the party's well-paid strategists can't devise an efficient meme for this ancient, obese, braindead, itchy-trigger-finger mob, we're in big trouble.
This should be a hanging curve ball for the progressives now at bat.
August 18, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
They appear to be going by the manual on this one: IOKIYAR :: Second Amendment :: not the USSS's fault :: USSS replaced by Xe.
August 18, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps these chuckle heads should be reminded that there Peep in Chief of all-time Iconic Repute, Ronald Reagan was SHOT in the chest. (The occurrence spared me from having to attend the Academy Awards with a bad hairdo, but I see no other upside to the incident, and I was hardly a fan of the guy.)
This gun-totin' crap is ridiculously cavalier, at best. At worst, it is a harbinger of the full realization that Michele Bachman's cohorts are "armed and dangerous" as she called for them to be.
August 18, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Second Amendment: "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." Why are these militias not regulated, never mind "well regulated"?
August 19, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I note that you include all of the clauses in the 2nd. Wingers would prefer that regulation stuff not to be considered. Just as they prefer "promote the general welfare" to be ignored in the preamble to the Constitution.
August 19, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"well regulated" in the 1770's meant: ready for battle by reason of regular training which included "regulated", i.e., kept in battle readiness by cleaning and siting in firearms. It was believed the Republic would be best defended by a volunteer, citizen militia instead of a standing army. The Swiss have used this method with 100% success for hundreds of years. The U.S. has not, and the result is Federal troops being called out to crush popular protests such as the anti-income tax protest in 1916, the anti-draft protests, and anti-war protests. And so the right to petition, and assembly were violated.
August 19, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the kind of history- and law-illiterate pseudo-law junk I love:
"'well regulated' in the 1770's meant: ready for battle by reason of regular training which included 'regulated', i.e., kept in battle readiness by cleaning and siting in firearms."
It NEVER meant that. The militia was ALWAYS UNDER the rule of law, the sysnonym for "law" being REGULATION. MA-Bay's "Militia Act" was enacted with the advent of the colony's militia in 1629/30, at the founding of the oclony. There was NEVER a time when the Founders, of ANY era, allowed armed gangs to run around OUTSIDE the law shooting AT their gov'ts.
MA-Bay, as example, repealed and reenacted its 1645 "Militia Act," after amending, in January, 1776.
What that means, history-illiterate, is that the "Minutemen" at Lexington-Concord were not simply a bunch of patriots who chose to show up out of love of country. Rather, they were ENLISTED in the LEGITIMATE militia, and functioned UNDER the state's "Militia Act".
One sees the language and form of the unbroken tradition in the US Constitution:
First, as you SHOULD know, the Constitution stipulates that the Congress shall MAKE THE LAWS. And that is its function: it MAKES LAWS in order to REGULATE. Those laws are also called REGULATIONS. Second, there are THREE references to "Militia" in the Constitution, not only that you pull out of context in order to lie to the even more illiterate than you. The first two references to "Militia" are the MILITIA clauses in the body of the Constitution. This is the first ot those two, which stipulates the purposes of the Militia:
US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 15: Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and reple Invasions.
And HOW does Congress "provide for"? By, of course, enacted LAWS in order to REGULATE. This is the second of the first two referneces to "Militia" in the body of the Constitution, and it was IMPLEMENTED by the "Militia Act" of 1792 (now "Title 10"):
US Con. Art. I., s. 8, c. 16: Congress shall have the Power To provide for" -- by enacting LAWS to REGULATE -- "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers*, and the Authority of training the Militia ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.
_____
*How the state's militia is to be "officered," etc., is stipulated in the state's constitution, along with the stipulation that the Commander-in-Chief of the militia is the state's GOVERNOR.
Ask yourself, twit: Is the state's governor, being head of both gov't and militia, going to "defend against" HIMSELF?
_____
"It was believed the Republic would be best defended by a volunteer, citizen militia instead of a standing army."
The Bill of Rights, which was framed by the first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution, was drawn from the existing state constitutions/bills of rights adopted during 1776-77, and 1780. The Second Amendment was drawn from the MILITIA clauses of FOUR of those already-existing constitutions/bills of rights. The Militia clause in one's state constitution/bill of rights is EASILY recognized: it incluses the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," and usually continues with something like, "FOR the defense of the State". "State" is GOV'T, not "area of land".
The purpose of the militia is to defend the COMMUNITY, and, push come to shove, the GOV'T/rule of law.
"The Swiss have used this method with 100% success for hundreds of years."
Clue: the US is not Switzerland, so Switzerland is irrelevant to the issue. In addition, the source of the militia and its regulation in the BRITISH colonies was not Switzerland; it was (initially) BRITAIN.
"The U.S. has not, and the result is Federal troops being called out to crush popular protests such as the anti-income tax protest in 1916, the anti-draft protests, and anti-war protests. And so the right to petition, and assembly were violated."
No, they were not: see the above two MILITIA clauses. And see the First Amendment, which reads in relevant part:
"Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting . . . or abridging . . . the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble . . . ."
OBVIOULY, Congress can make all the laws it wants prohibiting VIOLENT asembly. And if jackasses such as you ignore those laws, Congress can Federalize the militia and squash your anti-Constitutional ass.
The third reference to the Militia is the Second Amendment, which was a sop to the anti-Federalists in exchange for their support of ratification of the Constitution. It's purpose waws to expressly secure the right of the states to keep their militia. It did not, of course, change anything in the Militia clauses: Congress still regulates the militia, even when NOT Federalized. This is the first darft of that which became the Second Amendment -- which arose from the earlier debates focused SOLELY on whether to have a Standing Army, or an alternative. The decision having been made to go with militia as the alternative, the Second Amendment was about structuring the regulation and governing of the militia. The final clause of it is the ONLY PROPOSED "individual right" debated concerning the amendment:
"The right of the people (PLURAL, as in "We the people"; it is not, "We the individual," or, "I the people") to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed*; a well armed, and well regulated militia (NOT "individual") being the best security of a free country (NOT "individual"): but no person (INDIVIDUAL) religiously scrupulous of (AGAINST) bearing arms, shall be compelled (INVOLUNTARY -- conscription into the militia was not unknown) to render military service (NOTR "self-defense") in person." _Creating the Bill of Rights_ (Johns Hopkins, 1991), Ed. by Veit, et al., at 12.
_____
*Again, this phrase was drawn from the MILITIA clauses of FOUR of the already-existing state constitutions/bills of rights. In some instances it was preceded by the phrase, "A standing army, being dangerous to liberty,". Got it? ANY armed force -- which is what a militia is -- is a danger to liberty IF NOT REGULATED UNDER LAW.
_____
That the final clause -- which concerned conscientious objection to MILITIA DUTY -- was VOTED DOWN OBVIOUSLY means the Second Amendment has nothing wahtever to do with "individual" ANYTHING.
August 20, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because they claim to be an alternative "citizens militia". The fake "unorganized militia".
They are not at all what the LEGITIMATE militias of the Founders/Framers were: ENLISTED, and functioning UNDER the rule of law, NOT in spite of it.
August 20, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to recall that protesters at Bush and Cheney events were wrestled to the ground and arrested for wearing an anti-war T-shirt. So I guess a T-shirt is considered more dangerous by the police and the Secret Service than an assault rifle, and that the First Amendment can be violated, but not the Second Amendment. Why do we even bother having a Constitution?
August 18, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the difference between a president that respects civil liberties and one that didn't.
August 18, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely right. BHO is bringing us back from the precipice of a police state, and in the process endangering his life, his family's lives, and the lives of anyone who disagrees with the Limbaughtomized right.
August 18, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
NOW will the Secret Service and/or FBI do something to stop this insanity?????
If TPM can discover this much info in 24 hours, imagine how much the Feds know about these lunatics?
August 18, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well . . .
You keep a tight eye on the nut tree, while making sure it doesn't break an overloaded limb and harm anyone, and keep it shaking till all the rotten nuts are out in the open on the ground.
It's better to get the enemy the out in plain sight than wonder who they are.
If you can get my drift . . .
~OGD~
August 18, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably three of every ten "militia members" -- oops, "patriots" -- are undercover agents.
Not to justify their paranoia or anything.
August 20, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know it's hard for you folks to say, unless they look different from you, but they are terrorists - they attempt to implement political change through fear.
Say it with me slowly. T E R R O R I S T S.
August 18, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are terrorists but the MSM-indoctrinated public is jaded to that word and will only see OBL for as long as they are alive. Give them a new word that specifically identifies their real threat:
Seditionists.
Obama needs a strong-hand security team leader to address this publicly.
August 18, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
P A T R I O T A C T
Use it or lose it. Personally...I'd prefer to lose it. But if we can't lose it...what sweet karma it'd be to use it against right wingers! After all - it's the PATRIOT Act!
August 18, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang...was supposed to be a reply to sherifffruitfly: "Say it with me slowly. T E R R O R I S T S."
August 18, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN claimed falsely this was legal:
http://igotmyreasons.wordpress.com/
Judging from this there may be reasons the guy with rifle didn't indentify himself.
August 18, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read your linked article. Most points are theoretical...but his questioning of whether Chris has a criminal background is solid. Don't think criminals can carry semi-automatic rifles around in public. A reasonable question.
August 18, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you have something to say, say it here. comments aren't ad space. if readers find your comments worthwhile they might bother looking at your blog. but if i have to click on a link to read something you've written because you only want to use your comments here as teasers, you're nothing more than blog pollution.
August 18, 2009 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is it's legal to carry a firearm (loaded?) in AZ as long as it's not concealed. Remember, this is the land of Joe Arpaio. I suspect the guy was "vetted" by LE somewhere along the way, hopefully by Phoenix Police rather than Maricopa County Sheriffs. (I suspect, they were probably on a first-name basis with the gentlemen whack-jobs.)
But what's really spooky to me is that, obviously, the right-wingers are attempting to make openly carrying weapons at political gatherings, including presidential appearances(!), seem "normal." You know, "patriotic."
And consider this: Had they been carrying pitchforks they would likely have been detained for questioning on general public safety reasons, and possibly considered for an involuntary psychiatric hold. Thankfully, our brethren had only firearms.
Spookier still: This behavior has been and will continue to be encouraged, overtly as well as subliminally, on every network — by national-level politicians no less.
Until something truly awful happens. Then they will all feign surprise, shock and horror, and the obligatory heartfelt sympathies.
August 18, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are we still discussing health care? Especially with people that will vote against ANYTHING that is in it that threatens health insurers? They want to protect the ones that have brought us to this point. Just like they want to preserve the obscene salaries and bonuses for Wall Street CEOs. Pass the goddamn bill with anything in it the Progressives want! Nothing less than becoming the Third Reich would satisfy these bigoted assholes. RECONCILIATION!!
August 18, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
So crazy militia members who carry firearms to public events and plot to blow up buildings are considered okay by Republicans, but animal rights and environmental activists are "terrorists" who get legislation passed against them?
The United States really is a shithole.
August 18, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...and plot to blow up buildings..."
Ummm...are you describing Bill Ayers (Obama's "bestest friend in the whole wide world)???
No? You're describing Ernest Hancock? Oh...never mind. IOKIYAR
August 18, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the difference is by the time Obama and Ayers became friends Ayers had renounced his violent ways...the right wing militias currently embrace violence and intimidation.
August 18, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Ayers was trying to end a war that cost 56,000 American lives. I got no problem with that.
What was Hancock's pals trying to end?????
August 18, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a big problem with what Ayers did...on a couple of levels. People like him, who resorted to violence, were the main reason that the progressive movement of the 1960's was derailed. The cause was a noble one but the ends did not justify the means and killed the movement. Violence never resolves anything...Dr. King and Gandhi had that right.
In the case of Hancock and his ilk they just hate...I see no other motivation for their actions.
August 18, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Violence resolves thousands of lives every single day. Admitting that it does is not to declare ones love for it, or even approval.
But to deny it is disingenuous at best.
I don't mean to be critical, but I think you are vastly understating the impact that federal state and municipal officials had in derailing the progressive movement of the 60s.
COINTELPRO was just one small part of their efforts.
And then, like now, the reactionaries are using their media influence to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt.
August 19, 2009 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Violence never resolves anything"???
Let's set up a debating panel on this.
One side can be the citizens of Troy, the other side can be the citizens of Carthage. As a backup to either side, we could use the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or even Dresden.
The statement "Violence never resolves anything" is wishful thinking at its worst.
.
August 20, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does violence "resolve"? If so, it certainly doesn't SOLVE.
August 20, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except that Ayers himself did not resort to violence.
August 20, 2009 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Ayers are acquaintances. That's different from friends. Friends is a subset of acquaintances.
August 19, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Ayers are acquaintances. That's different from friends. Friends is a subset of acquaintances.
August 19, 2009 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused. I thought animal rights and eco activists were the number one threat, not law-abiding assault weapons owners and the militias they belong to: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/05/19/17383601.php
August 18, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good job, guys. I was combing thru some of Hancock's and Ron Paul's stuff earlier looking for Chris in the videos, but hadn't had a chance to post anything.
Added background: Hancock has been a prominent Libertarian in AZ for a bunch of yrs, has run for statewide (and, I think, Congressional) offices, has been involved in litigious fights with other (more reasonable) Libertarians over control of their party, etc.
August 18, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no more such a thing as a reasonable "Libertarian" than there is such a thing as a reasonable Ayn Randian.
It's amazing what the Ron Paul supporters look like when one looks under the radar.
August 20, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weren't the Viper Militia considered suspects in the bombing at the 1996 Summer Olympics?
August 18, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This militia scare is what got them their crime ban."
what?? that's crazy! how dare they ban crime!!
my guess is that he said or meant to say 'crime bill' in reference to the 'assault weapons' ban therein.
but i don't follow the timeline he's offering. the crime bill was 1994. oklahoma city was 1995. and the viper militia was 1996.
August 18, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"but i don't follow the timeline he's offering. the crime bill was 1994. oklahoma city was 1995. and the viper militia was 1996."
Right after "the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor"!
(Animal House ref...in case anybody didn't realize)
August 18, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
When John McCain comes back from paling around with and having a sleepover with his soulmate, the American killing terrorist Colonel Qadhaffi in Libya, would McCain give us his schedule so we could exercise our second amendment rights as he goes by?
August 18, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I suspected, those yahoos are far from responsible gun owners. They are hot headed revolutionary wannabes, looking for any excuse. The assembled crowd is lucky it didn't give them one.
No responsible gun owner would ever endanger a crowd of hundreds in a crowded urban setting by recklessly strapping on a piece and parading around calling attention to himself.
August 18, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As one of those responsible gun owners Aatos mentions, I'm appalled at this stupidity. These morons are jonesing for a fight. Lord help us if they get one.
Funny how it's okay to say all Muslims are terrorists and yet we somehow forget we grow 'em in our own back yard.
August 18, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NRA promotes and teaches classes on responsible gun ownership, but their current silence is deafening.
August 18, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point!!!!!
Someone should call out the NRA for their postion on protesters packin' heat at these emotional protests.
Expose them (NRA) for what they are - nuts.
August 18, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Silence? The latest slogan from Wayne LaPierre is:
"The man with the gun makes the rules."
How does that set an example for responsibility -- let alone support democracy? He is the jack-booted thug with the life-of-its-own "Dr. Strangelove" arm.
August 20, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say this guy sounds very similar to a number of prominent conservatives in that he advocates a very liberal interpretation of US gun rights, is advocating (by defending the Militia saying "it was all made up") the freedom to collaborate with friends who are like-minded politically yet he is against the government working against him and his group? I looked at the video of this the african-american talking about "his opinions" on taxes. I believe there is something called "protecting against enemies both foreign and domestic" in our constitution. This guy may interpret this part of our constitution differently than the President nevertheless, I wouldn't imagine a stable country if our government and the people who work to protect would not be concerned with armed ideological groups, whether they be left or right.
To the commentator that once again had to throw William Ayers name into the ring. I accept that bombing federal buildings in all cases should be prosecuted and discouraged by the government and the public. So maybe we are on the same page here. However as I see it William Ayers is not now nor has he since then actively taken a role in bombing federal buildings. It would appear that his life is now about putting time into American Education. Maybe you see it differently but I would like to believe that we live in a country where people who have made big mistakes work to make up for them by committing themselves to positive change. I believe in a system that rehabilitates its criminals because surely that is a better outcome for society. I realize that it may be unrealistic to believe that all offenders will be reformed but I believe it worth trying for two reasons. One offenders who rehabilitate make them productive members in our society and two I would imagine possible reform could lead to less costly penal systems.
Prison reform is a whole other subject but Jim Webb's ideas on the subject see like a good place to start.
Cheers
August 18, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
JoshQ...that was me that made the Ayers comment. It was purely tongue-in-cheek.
As someone who was #31 on the draft list in the 70's, I am grateful to Ayers for his efforts to end the obscene Viet Nam war. That war cost at least 56,000 American lives (including my brother-in-law's brother). I had no particular interest in being 56,001.
I am eternally grateful for all the efforts of the anti-Viet Nam protestors - they did something that's never been done before in America: they stood up to and challenged the American Government.
And that's why you, me and every other American has the ability to stand up to the American Government today - because of Ayers and the rest of the Viet Nam protesters.
Again, WTF is Hancock and his buddies protesting???
August 18, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sanity.
August 19, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can only hope the DNC is paying attention right now. We need to bank this stuff for 2010. There oughta be ads -- 30 seconds, 1-2 minutes, hell infomercial length ads -- that tie the repugs to these whack jobs. Congressmen and Senators coming out and saying this shit is okay? This is crazy ground. I was just looking at the nutcase winger who shouted "Heil Hitler" to a Jewish man who just wanted to talk about health care. And Nate Silver says we need to be worried about big losses in '10? Only if nobody's at the switch. There's pathology at work here. These people have lost their moorings, and they want to drive over the cliff. Somebody needs to hand them the keys to the car.
August 18, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be the conservative circle-jerk known as the Fox Opinion Channel.
August 19, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone remember President Bush's free speech zones? A man was arrested in Columbia, SC, in October 2002 for his refusal to retreat to a “free speech zone” during a fund raising visit of President George W. Bush. His crime? He was carrying a sign that said "No War for Oil." Now people freely carry assault weapons to President Obabma's town hall meetings.
For details, see: http://www.scpronet.com/policy-work/free-speech-on-trial
At the time, was he the only person ever convicted under a federal statute that allows the Secret Service to create a secure zone around presidential events. Why doesn't that federal statute apply to these people carrying guns?
August 18, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand what your point is.
You want Obama to copy Bush's "free speech zones"? Or you're just whining?
August 19, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo,
your reason for coming here all too often seems to be to 'not understand' points made.
August 19, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is being made out to be the greatest threat to our Constitution that this nation has ever seen by the right; but obviously he respects our rights a whole lot more than Bush ever did!
I honestly think that these jokers in AZ were hoping to get arrested or bothered by the police, secret service or Obama's political people on the ground. It shows a lot of restraint and respect for our rights that these idiots were left alone while as mentioned for the last 8 years people were physically removed from presidential "public" events for wearing the wrong t-shirt, carrying signs and even what bumper stickers they had on their cars!
August 19, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I honestly think that these jokers in AZ were hoping to get arrested or bothered by the police, secret service or Obama's political people "
- Yes, maybe they were.
Which is what made my ask my question. What do you people want, to copy Bush? Reading TPM "coverage" of guns at these meetings, I can't escape that conclusion.
August 19, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are the Democratic strategists on this?
A 15 second spot showing a demonstrator being arrested for wearing a tee shirt at a Bush rally and a gun-toting demonstrator being left alone at an Obama rally with a talk over that "This is the difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to respect for individual rights." would be devastating for the Republican cause.
.
August 20, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think we need people just like him to actually RUN this country!
ER
www.web-anonymity.us.tc
August 18, 2009 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Howzabout, while this is all getting sorted out, you refrain from giving them the personal attention – photos and stuff – that they do this crazy stuff to get? I don't see how plastering their names and faces all over the internets will improve the situation.
August 19, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth:
A few years ago I wanted to show my children some of the TV programming I grew up with and bought some DVDs of "Bonanza."
I had apparently forgotten the simplistic attitude the series took to firearms and conflict resolution.
Not only was every cowboy of course carrying a revolver or rifle, any and all conflicts were solved by shooting the opponent; the bad guys shot at the good guys, the good guys shot the bad guys, who then fell from the cliffs, dying a bloodless death (don't want to scare the kiddies too much, now do we?).
Some episodes did attempt to present a more peaceful lifestyle (a group of traveling Quakers, for instance), but the final moral was always "that didn't work, so we better have a shoot-out".
I am afraid that this trivialization of guns may be a part of the american psyche, and only those immediately affected by a tragedy involving a firearm will ever take the problem really seriously.
August 19, 2009 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Barack Obama himself has been a vocal supporter and friend of left-wing anti-government militia members (Weathermen) who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s.
By the way ... the White House does not share your pants-wetting on this issue. The Secret Service issued the following statement:
"Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, said incidents of firearms being carried outside presidential events are a 'relatively new phenomenon.' But he said the president’s safety is not being jeopardized."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs also reminded supporters on the left that just because Barack Obama shows up on the scene, that doesn't mean we suspend our laws for him.
"There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," he said. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality."
You folks should maybe read the Washington Post in the mornings.
August 19, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear distinguished gentleman from the other side/troll:
You're smart enought to use a computer. You're smart enough to read the WaPo. You're not smart enough to see that not everyone on your side is as smart as you? It'd take exactly one idiot who feels the armaggeddon is here/the socialists and The Conspiracy are taking over, and it's incumbent on him to shoot down the president. There's already been a few attempts. What is more likely to happen is he'll shoot some protestors, get taken out by snipers and, excuse the expression, give the anti-gun movement excellent ammunition for stronger gun laws. I'm not fond of Dick Cheney or Bush, but don't think it'd be a good idea for protestors against them to be armed, especially with military level ordnance. Tempers flare and it only takes one idiot to feel like they need to do something drastic.
Not bothering talking about your remark regarding Ayers. Read the WaPo on it before you speak.
August 19, 2009 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It'd take exactly one idiot who feels the armaggeddon is here/the socialists and The Conspiracy are taking over, and it's incumbent on him to shoot down the president."
The Secret Service, who are trained to look after the President, disagree with you. As does the President's spokesman.
I'm not surprised you don't want to talk about the fact that Barack Obama is a vocal supporter and friend of left-wing anti-government bombers who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s ... since, you know, this story is all about associations with terrorists.
The hypocrisy!
When the tables are turned, and you can't win the argument on the merits, Alinsky advises that you ridicule your opponent, since that's all you have left in your arsenal.
August 19, 2009 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
dear 123
there is a difference between 'friends' and 'acquaintances'. Did you know that, or are things not as easy as ABC too complex? Ayers was an aquaintance. Served on the same Board (sponsored by the Annenberg {definately conserv} Foundation), lived in the same neighborhood.
August 19, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Obama himself has called both Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne a "friend." Why are you arguing with the President? He counts them as their friends and has spent time with them in their home. Their kids went to school together. Obama has said this himself, sir.
Obama is an associate of home-grown terrorists who bombed federal buildings.
August 19, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Mr. Obama himself has called both Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorne a "friend." Why are you arguing with the President? He counts them as their friends and has spent time with them in their home. Their kids went to school together. Obama has said this himself, sir."
Yeah, but YOU know Obama is a liar who can't be believed in anything he says.
August 20, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you've heard "vocal support" for the Weatherman from Obama you're hearing things. See if an audiologist/psychiatrist is covered under your plan. Too bad health care is difficult to obtain in this country. I've likely read his book and listened to his speeches more attentively than you. In the wingnut lexicon "he was a guy who lived in my neighborhood" may be vocal support, but for the rest of the English-speaking world it means he was a guy who lived in the neighborhood.
No one thinks Ayers was right for bombing. We do believe in the judicial process, which is why people like Ayers, and Liddy and North walk around free. Nixon walked around free while he was alive too. Were Ayers to hang around outside a McCain townhall holding a bomb, I would like the Secret Service to take it away from him.
It's the "Secret" Service. They do the duck thing, serene on the surface, paddling like hell underneath. Why would they communicate being upset about anything? You think presidential spokesman say everything, or work to shape the topic? Do you believe everything the government tells you? If they express any displeasure about guns, the NRA takes whacks at them, and instead of people getting doctors to care for them, we get politicians arguing about hollow point bullets, and pols being carefully photographed shooting varmints. Not helpful to the country.
August 19, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not surprised you don't want to talk about the fact that John McCain is a vocal supporter and friend of Middle Eastern airplane terrorists who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s ... since, you know, this story is all about associations with terrorists.
Fixed your typos. You're welcome!
August 19, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on, it was just one Tweet, after dinner.
August 19, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm not surprised you don't want to talk about the fact that Barack Obama is a vocal supporter and friend of left-wing anti-government bombers who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s ... since, you know, this story is all about associations with terrorists."
Are they "left-wing anti-government bonmbers" NOW!? Then why are you on the computer, instead of reporting them to the authorities, Mr. More-Patriotic-Than-Thou?
August 20, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Barack Obama himself has been a vocal supporter and friend of left-wing anti-government militia members (Weathermen) who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s."
You don't know what you're talking about.
Which must be why you make it up.
August 20, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very much in the way our congress shows not a shred of common sense about anything, there is little of the same being applied here.
Where gun toting persons who ostensibly were out there exercising their rights we find now it was pretty much a fraud just like this whole charade over healthcare is a fraud.
This fraud is being perpetrated for the sole purpose of ripping people off and it is being run by the insurance industry. The very same insurance industry we associate with AIG and Wall Street. Make no mistake they are in the background pulling strings. Bet on it.
August 19, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
LEt's call it what it is:
A domestic terrorism movement.
Many of us spotted this several months ago, when Glenn Beck and Bachmann were encouraging their kooky fans to murder police officers.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/observer2/2009/04/domestic-terrorist-sympathizer.php
No different than the Al Qaeda assassins.
And just as ruthless:
No one needs to be reminded of the hundreds Timothy McVeigh killed, including children.
August 19, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
And if anyone has time to listen to this, it's great, and talks about the right's history of extremism.
http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/04/angry-america
August 19, 2009 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about those poor Liberty City mopes who were implicated in a plot to bomb the Sears Tower? Those guys could barely light a firecracker, let alone plan and execute a large scale bombing of a large building. They were called terrorists and are locked up.
August 19, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Many of us spotted this several months ago,"
And a very few of us have been sufficiently attentive to confront this lunacy for over twenty years.
August 20, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its interesting how just a little research into some of the righties turns up the crapola they've been involved in.
August 19, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
HERE'S A REALLY IMPORTANT ARTICLE ON THE SUBJECT OF AMERICA'S WARPED MENTALITY AND FLIRTATION WITH DANGER:
August 19, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"the same government that manufactured Waco and lied to its people about 9/11"
Interesting guilt-by-association smear.
Was Barry Jennings a dangerous "right-wing" lunatic?
Barry who, you ask?
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/barry-jennings-speaks/
August 19, 2009 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess he's honest about it?
Alright, I gotta get back to the state department, we're manufacturing another Jonestown this week.
August 19, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Silly posters! Terrorists Wear Turbans!
August 19, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It may not make much of an impact, but I am posting on the nutjob's hash tags. It's my small hope that some of their supporters read this and step back and think about who they are supporting:
RT Congressman has a brief conversation with a typical conservative spokesperson - http://bit.ly/iu7ov #ocra #iamthemob #neologicstruckdown
Intimidating 83% of us who support public option by assault-rifle toting rightwing militias isn't debate-who's the facist now? #ocra #hcr
#hcr - http://bit.ly/74aVd hey #ocra #iamthemob - what building will you all be blowing up next? #mcveewannabees
Typical excuse "Self defense is our right", yes-when defending life/family. Where is life threat @ healthcare townhall by non #ocra ? #hcr
#hcr Why are health insurance company profits being "defended" with assault rifles - whose life is really in danger? not #ocra #iamthemob
August 19, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
THE black guy that was carrying that Ar 15 needs to be aware of the fact that the militia groups..or at least some of them..dont like Blacks..so,if i were him..i would watch my back..once they cool down.they will all of a sudden notice him....
August 19, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Arizonans and Republicans are embarrassed and ashamed
at how these crackpots have commandeered their party, their message, their state image
August 19, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
all the while FOX news just keeps telling every one these are concerned citizens attending Town Hall meetings, exercising their rights..all spontaneous, not staged at all....I was watching Jon Stewart (I think I saw it on the Daily Show or Colbert?) last night..no wonder this country is so full of crazies...the majority of these people get their information from FOX network...something like 2 1/2 million to MSNBCs 750,000....or CNNs 650,000..seems to me we should be trying to get rid of Murdoch (Cheneys favorite right-wing propaganda "news" channel) and FOX (or at least hold them accountable) if we ever want at least the basic "truth in news" again
August 19, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, and I know this has nothing to do with what this guy really is doing but is it just me or does he look really bizarre? Sort of a cross between Clutch Cargo and a face that's been drawn on somebody's chin? Is this a possible origin for his deranged anti American, treasonous, violent, loony toon acting out? Maybe that's the real crux of the odd behavior on the loony right--people who don't fit in anywhere so they make up their little gun clubs and militias and treehouses. Just saying.
August 19, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has the "dead eyes" of a psycopath.
August 19, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink