Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Guns At Obama Rally!

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   


A NH man brought his loaded side arm to the staged healthcare debate at Portsmouth NH.

Mainstream media had a heart attack on the spot.

In this video you can watch Chris Mathews reach for his pacemaker as the man in question stands up for his rights.

Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show.



Open carry is legal in every state in some form or another. However, in most states if you attempt it, you will be arrested for disorderly conduct. NH believes in individual liberty and the constitution.





[edit on 11-8-2009 by mnemeth1]




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I totally agree with this guy, we are losing are rights and if you dont exercise them they will be taken (then again they will be taken anyways if something isn't done).

Nice find, star and flag.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I see that Chris Mathews avoided a very obvious question:

"What would you have done should someone else had brought a gun and attempted an assassination of President Obama?"

I feel that the answer would have ruined his whole accusatory slant. Of course Mathews may have asked the question and had it edited out. But still a poor attempt of fear-mongering. ALthough I am sure others are going to fall for it anyways.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Another classic Chris Matthews moment.



Think this pretty much tells it all, at least to most of us.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   
The interviewee did a good job of shutting Chris down. It came across to me like Chris thought he was dealing with a nut job and he got proven wrong.

And the interviewee has a very valid point that Chris didn't have an answer for, and that is if we don't exercise our rights then we will lose them.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Can someone please remind what country we live in?

For some reason, I've been forgetting lately.
Pinch me!



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Why didn't he ask,

"During this video we are showing, you clearly have an earpiece in like the ones you'd see on a FBI or CIA agent. Are you a federal agent?"



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
Why didn't he ask,

"During this video we are showing, you clearly have an earpiece in like the ones you'd see on a FBI or CIA agent. Are you a federal agent?"


That's a good question, I believe he was invited to be there by the church organizers and was probably in contact with them. He's also a part of the free state movement, so if someone was to act against him he probably had radio contact with his friends.

That, or it could just be a normal FM radio and he was listening to the event with a custom ear piece so he could hear over the crowd.

Or, the least likely scenario, he was an FBI plant attempting to do what, I don't know. It would not be in the governments interest to promote open carry at such events.



[edit on 11-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I think that was a very foolish thing to do, no matter what kind of point he was trying to prove. It is no wonder that representatives of the Obama administration are becoming reluctant to attend these gatherings in person. People are edging closer and closer to violence, and if a man can carry a loaded gun to a Presidential event, whatever his individual intentions, that is a cause for concern.

Full disclosure - I am anti-gun. I think the 2nd Amendment is a relic from a different age and completely futile in our present world. If your government wants to crack down on you, your little firearm will not protect you. The material odds are so stacked against you that you would stand no chance. The best you could do is go down firing. And while that may appeal to some sort of romanticized cowboy ideal, in reality you will just end up dead, with the only consolation being that perhaps you will have taken someone else's life in the process. Is that something of which to be proud?

A far more practical solution would be to break out of the paradigm of violence being met with violence. That may not be a popular view, but it is my two cents.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrowServo


Full disclosure - I am anti-gun. I think the 2nd Amendment is a relic from a different age and completely futile in our present world. If your government wants to crack down on you, your little firearm will not protect you.


But if some crackhead decides to rob me, burgularize my home, rape my wife or daughter .. I bet cha my little firearm will protect me and my family a lot better than the government.

How much more emboldened would said crackhead be if he knew with certainty there would not be any such resistance?



The material odds are so stacked against you that you would stand no chance. The best you could do is go down firing. And while that may appeal to some sort of romanticized cowboy ideal, in reality you will just end up dead, with the only consolation being that perhaps you will have taken someone else's life in the process. Is that something of which to be proud?


I forgive your very limited viewpoint on this subject.


A far more practical solution would be to break out of the paradigm of violence being met with violence. That may not be a popular view, but it is my two cents.


It sounds good on paper. Unfortunately.. it just isn't reality. Never has been. And since the USA is not the only manufaturer of firearms in this world. they will still exist... they will still exist in America-through clandestine (black market) means...which is squarely operated by those than have no intention of following the law.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrowServo
I think that was a very foolish thing to do, no matter what kind of point he was trying to prove. It is no wonder that representatives of the Obama administration are becoming reluctant to attend these gatherings in person. People are edging closer and closer to violence, and if a man can carry a loaded gun to a Presidential event, whatever his individual intentions, that is a cause for concern.

Full disclosure - I am anti-gun. I think the 2nd Amendment is a relic from a different age and completely futile in our present world. If your government wants to crack down on you, your little firearm will not protect you. The material odds are so stacked against you that you would stand no chance. The best you could do is go down firing. And while that may appeal to some sort of romanticized cowboy ideal, in reality you will just end up dead, with the only consolation being that perhaps you will have taken someone else's life in the process. Is that something of which to be proud?

A far more practical solution would be to break out of the paradigm of violence being met with violence. That may not be a popular view, but it is my two cents.


History shows us that the most violent acts are not committed by "criminals", they are committed by government.

100 million killed by communists this past century, not including the deaths of WWII or the Jews of the holocaust.

That good sir, is why our founding fathers saw fit to arm the public.

Guns are a tool that equalize power among the people. Without guns, the biggest and meanest dominate the weakest among us.

This function as a power equalizer is the primary reason why big government democrats dislike guns. They ultimately stand in the way of "progress".

Not only is the right to defend oneself with firepower a god given right, the science is also clear. More guns equals less violence. Conceal carry is now the law of the land in the majority of states. Criminal use of guns among legal conceal carry owners is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar below that of the general public. The streets are safer with guns in the peoples hands.

Open carry stands as a bold display of individual liberty and should be applauded.

Its putting the government on notice that they are NOT superior to us, they are our equals.

Gun control laws were originally enacted in the south as a tool to keep blacks disarmed. They have their roots in slavery. Just as they do today. Enslavement of the populace where only the masters are allowed to openly carry weapons.








[edit on 12-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
That guy carried himself really well. If that were me, I'd probably have started yelling at Chris Mathews.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by CrowServo
 


I'm just wondering should the cops not carry their loaded weapons to presidential events?

Cops and secret service agents are people just like this guy, you and me. What is stopping from one of them from turning on a president?

The only difference between them and us is that they were trained by the government. Should those people not carry weapons either?

Cops are no different than you or me or anybody else, except for the fact that they dress in a uniform and wear a badge and enforce the laws. Why do you feel that citizens shouldn't enforce the laws when a law breaker encroaches on there private property?

This guy was exercising his rights, and he clearly meant no harm.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
But if some crackhead decides to rob me, burgularize my home, rape my wife or daughter .. I bet cha my little firearm will protect me and my family a lot better than the government.

How much more emboldened would said crackhead be if he knew with certainty there would not be any such resistance?



The material odds are so stacked against you that you would stand no chance. The best you could do is go down firing. And while that may appeal to some sort of romanticized cowboy ideal, in reality you will just end up dead, with the only consolation being that perhaps you will have taken someone else's life in the process. Is that something of which to be proud?


I forgive your very limited viewpoint on this subject.


That hypothetical crackhead might just as easily be armed himself and get the drop on you. If somebody wants something you have, they can take it, whether or not you resist. It is much safer to not draw in those situations in the first place. I postulate that if you own a gun, you're more likely to create a situation in which to use it, albeit unconsciously.

How is my viewpoint limited when I stated that you would have no chance against the forces of the government should they decide to oppress you? It has what may as well be an infinite supply of the most powerful weapons on the planet. Violent resistance is futile. 200 years ago, you might have stood a chance, but even a well-organized group of armed citizens would be vanquished without much difficulty.

As for your points, mnemeth1, I know my history, (I do have a degree in it, after all) and I would agree that in principle one does have more to fear from governments than any sort of criminal element. But I would again state that guns are not an equalizer when you can never hope to compare with the resources of the government. It is too late for that.

It is easy to get gridlocked into the mentality of violence answering violence, but that, to me, is a very outmoded philosophy. When you carry death with you, you are often met with death. You radiate it. If you are really concerned about life and survival, however, then you might try a less violent approach. Then, perhaps, you won't attract death. You may, if that is your karma, but it's up to you.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Is this what Matthews is always like? Seems like he should have had a heart attack before Russert.

He's not a plant. He's a Free Stater.

People open carry everyday in NH and whenever there is any sort of political event or protest or rally or even a hearing at the State House residents show up in droves with their guns on their hips.

I'm sure there were numerous guns the cameras didnt see both open and concealed.

There's a reason NH has such low crime rates and high rates of individual freedom.

You dont appreciate out way of doing things then stay out of the state. Please stay the hell out of the state.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Christ Mathews was really let down by the end of the interview. He just wasn't able to pull out the "schizo-paranoid-birther-Paulite" that he thought he was going to showcase.

I think he got excited when the gentleman said he voted for Ron Paul. Mathews quickly moved into the "Birther" movement and questioning the legitimacy of the President.

What agenda? LMAO.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Yeah, I wish it had been me getting interviewed.

I would have mopped the floor with him.



[edit on 12-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrowServo

That hypothetical crackhead might just as easily be armed himself and get the drop on you. If somebody wants something you have, they can take it, whether or not you resist.


My gun and I beg to differ.

I guarantee you that I'm a lot better trained and practiced at hitting what I'm firing at than the crackhead trying to rob me.

And you're right ... he might get the drop on me. But, I like my chance a lot more when I'm armed. Because, like you said, he MIGHT get the drop on me. But, if I'm un-armed, he's will DEFINITELY get the drop on me.



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by CrowServo
 


If you have a degree in history, then I would think you would be far more reluctant to hand over your right to self-defense to the government.

Just ask the Jews
or Ukrainians
or Pols
or Chinese
etc.. etc.. etc..

As to your comment about a armed citizens not being able to revolt against the government. First off there are over 65 million armed citizens in this country, the actual combat troops of the US military total less than a few hundred thousand, excluding cooks, supply, navy, airfarce, ect.. ect..

Should the people revolt, they would kick the military's proverbial azz. BUT - as in any popular uprising, it is safe to assume that the military would be divided as well. And in this case, since most of our military voted for Ron Paul, I think we know which side they would be on.

So this argument that guns could not protect us from the US military if they were to enact tyranny against the people is a total farce. No military can stand up to 65 million angry civilians. In fact I would go so far as to say we could completely disband the military and never be invaded - ever. No country would be stupid enough to try it.

Could you imagine the Chinese Red Army rolling through downtown Compton? HAHAHAHH the gangs would kill half of them before they got into Inglewood.




[edit on 12-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 12 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
If the secret service didn't have a problem with it then who is Chris Matthews to argue it? Obviously the Secret Service felt that he wasn't a threat.


I would hate to think what I would have said if he talked to me that way.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join