Obama Protesters = Patriots with Guns, Bush Protesters = Criminals with T-Shirts

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I dont think any of these people were "brandishing" their firearms.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I dont think any of these people were "brandishing" their firearms.

brandish: 2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

You think carrying an automatic rifle to a political rally isn't a bit ostentatious? Okay. Matter of opinion, I guess.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


This seems like an oversimplification and a presentation of one side of the story. If you do a little digging, you'll actually find Obama and Bush protesters have been arrested. You'll also find various media sources demonized one or the other.

For instance, conservative Fox news demonized the anti-war Bush protesters while liberal MSNBC is demonizing the Obama protesters.

Or you had Hillary say dissent was patriotic under Bush but Pelosi making out the Obama protesters to be exhibiting behavior that is not American.

It feels like everyone is being hypocrites here and it's very upsetting to me. A few days ago I even went through some old threads on ATS from 2008 about the bailout bill under Bush. The same ATS posters who are criticizing the Obama protesters as loud mouths are the same ones that told people to 'get angry, cuss, and scream' under Bush less than a year ago.

Then I did some thread digging from a few years ago and the same ones who told the anti-war protesters to buck up and support the country are the same ones now saying the protesters are within their right.

I almost did a thread on it with quote snippets from posts but didn't want to single out any members. But it's the truth: We're kind of being hypocrites in this regard.

[edit on 8/19/2009 by AshleyD]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Not just opinion. It's a matter of law. Walking around with a rifle over my shoulder is not brandishing and I am omitting no crime. The moment I start waving it around I'm brandishing and technically committing several crimes.

* Main Entry: 1bran·dish
* Pronunciation: \ˈbran-dish\
* Function: transitive verb
* Etymology: Middle English braundisshen, from Anglo-French brandiss-, stem of brandir, from brant, braund sword, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English brand
* Date: 14th century

1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

Slung or in a holster is not brandishing.

To go around saying that it is presents it in a dishonest fashion. Generally such dishonest representation is done to push a certain agenda. In this case "gun phobia."

Originally posted by AshleyD
This seems like an oversimplification and a presentation of one side of the story.

It definitely IS one side of the story. I thought that was clear from my first sentence. I'm presenting a story from a different perspective. There are enough stories right now from the other perspective to fill a dump truck. As to whether it's a simplification, you may be right. But sometimes, that's what it takes to get a point across.

If you do a little digging, you'll actually find Obama and Bush protesters have been arrested. You'll also find various media sources demonized one or the other.

I'm not arguing that point. I'm challenging people to ask themselves: What if one or two protesters had shown up at a Bush rally wearing an automatic weapon?

It feels like everyone is being hypocrites here and it's very upsetting to me.

Yeah. That's what I'm pointing out here. Hypocrisy. Many of the same people who are standing up for these guys and their guns wanted Bush protesters arrested and jailed because of the shirts they wore.

I support them all.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Not just opinion. It's a matter of law. Walking around with a rifle over my shoulder is not brandishing and I am omitting no crime. The moment I start waving it around I'm brandishing and technically committing several crimes.

Show me the law that defines the word brandish.

2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

I'm using the second meaning. I already wrote that. I don't know how one could wear an AR15 in anything less than a showy or ostentatious manner.

Generally such dishonest representation is done to push a certain agenda. In this case "gun phobia."

You couldn't be more incorrect. As it happens, I'm an accomplished marksman and a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.

Yup I have nothing against either protesting!

The gun is a bit excessive, yes. I don't support killing Obama, as much as I dislike him. After all he is a just a puppet, the cabal would still be there, so all you would be creating is a grieving Obama family.

I find the Left and Right both very hypocritical - they are "fair-weather patriots".

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Then it would be up to you as prosecutor to prove "aggressive manner."

Granted in a state like CT, NY or MA or CA simply stating "I was scared" would probably be proof enough for the jury but in a state not exclusively populated by numbnuts you would be laughed out of the court room.

More proof these United States should be divided. The polar opposite cultures will destroy one another.

Another thread for the right and left to hurl insults at each other... great.

You must be so proud

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Neither should be arrested.

I agree completely!

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
The type of people who take rifles to Obama rallies are the bad crazy type, IMO.

I know you said it's your opinion, but if they were bad crazies, then it seems more would have happened. Perhaps their judgment wasn't the best or most logical (wearing a gun to a health care rally?) but nothing about any of these citizens has indicated that they are bad or crazy.

reply to post by downtown436

 

Excellent point!

Originally posted by marg6043
I asked my husband if he will carry his concealed weapon to a place where the president was nearby, he said he would because it was his right, but he is not stupid and he knows that he will stay far away as possible from the actual place where security is stronger.

Exactly. I think it's stupid to brandish a firearm at a political rally, but I support the right for these people to make their statement, however stupid and however illogical it may be.

Originally posted by kozmo
Under NO circumstances are armed citizens permitted anywhere in the vacinity of the President - PERIOD!

I made no such claim. I'm sure you'll be happy to tell me what exactly is "misinformed" about my post.

My point isn't to argue whether or not it was "right" to carry arms at a political rally. Obviously, these people are within their rights and I support them. I've just heard so many one-sided arguments lately about the double standards used in dealing with Obama and Bush that I thought I'd point out one glaring one that no one has yet to mention...

Thank you for bringing this to our attention BH!



Yeah I was also amazed at the contradiction and to your point, this is exactly the kind of change we need.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic



Fair enough... I didn't say the OP was misinformed - I said the thread was. Further, the whole notion that this even matters is precisley the problem - It DOESN'T matter!!! This is simply another attempt to divide and conquer the masses. I've got news for all of you partisans out there - Bush was an ass and Obama is ass!!! And BOTH of those asses have you all hoodwinked!

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Then it would be up to you as prosecutor to prove "aggressive manner."

A. This isn't a court of law and I have nothing to prove.
B. The definition stated "in an ostentatious or aggressive manner".
C. My use of the word "brandish" is not the even CLOSE to the subject of this thread.

I see the word has got your panties in a twist, however. I am sorry. My intent was not in any way related to "gun phobia", but ostentatiousness, as in a pretentious display. I am a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, and in fact, I have argued FOR the Second Amendment many times on this board.

Originally posted by Resinveins
Another thread for the right and left to hurl insults at each other... great.

That's not at all the purpose of this thread, although people are free to hurl insults if they wish. My purpose has been stated several times.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


And if I call the grass red... in reality it's still green.

All your doing here is providing a place and subject for one side to bash the other.

And I think if that was not your intention.. this thread would have a different title.. if it existed at all.

Originally posted by Resinveins
All your doing here is providing a place and subject for one side to bash the other.

If that's true, we could say the same of ATS as a whole... The people who post are responsible for the content of their posts. I have no control over other posters.

In reality, all you're doing is interrupting a discussion about double standards. None of your posts are on topic. If you have nothing to say about the subject, then I'm not sure why you're even posting here.

This situation of arrest at protests reveals a hypocrisy that I wanted to explore. If you don't, find somewhere else to play. I'm finished defending my subject matter to you.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Yes .. truly rude of me to interrupt and say that there is hypocrisy on both sides.

And that yet another "hey you guys are hypocrites" thread isn't exactly constructive...

... and not only that ... but in my opinion is a significant part of the problem

How off topic of me.

I mean the nerve of someone.. to interrupt your fingerpointing and rabble rousing...

And as far as defending your content... no need to defend it to me... you'd never be able to.

Truly.

Here's an interesting story on the protest/arrest situation.

Feds got one right when they left armed protesters alone:

Source

From a relatively minor office that was originally intended to defer to Congress, the presidency has become a quasi-monarchical position expected to evoke instant reverence among the masses. Voicing disagreement within earshot of the president is now treated almost as an act of blasphemy.
...
So it's encouraging that officials are not only backing off the authoritarian "free speech zones" that prevailed so recently, but are even recognizing protesters' right to go armed.

And if a few officials and their lackeys feel unease at the sight of guns in the hands of the great unwashed, well, as the tag line for the movie V for Vendetta put it, "People shouldn't be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."

the pelosi have said they are un-patriotic and not American, obama said shut and get out of the way. my point is both sides do it, when its the opposing view point . its politics playing to the lowest common denominator in the populace, the people who cant a decision for themselves. even though not many have been arrested at health rallies as opposed to war rallies , its because the health rallies are non-violent and there is respect for authority among the protesters . carrying a legal firearm and yelling is not being violent, not in good taste but no way violent. now with war protesters every chance they got they disrespected the rule of law defying police orders, blocking public access so they get arrested. mainly a bunch of old hippies trying to relive the 60's or young anti-authority anarchists were the problem, the civil people were just drowned out by the wackos just like today, many civil people in the town halls, but for the NBC ABC CBS liberal media it wouldn't make good TV for their views

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I dont think any of these people were "brandishing" their firearms.

brandish: 2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner

You think carrying an automatic rifle to a political rally isn't a bit ostentatious? Okay. Matter of opinion, I guess.

When did anyone carry an automatic rifle to a political rally.

Please provide a link that shows someone brought an automatic weapon to a rally.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What if one or two protesters had shown up at a Bush rally wearing an automatic weapon?

Given that people were arrested for wearing shirts, if anyone had shown up at any Bush event with any kind of weapon at all, I imagine they would have been slammed down and disappeared in a truly impressively short amount of time.

The attitude of the Bush administration regarding conflicting opinions is clear, and the Bush administration was responsible for one of the larger gun grabs in recent history (the post-Katrina NO 'clean up').

My personal opinion is that showing up at anybody's political event with a weapon is a moronic thing to do. There is no doubt that these people have the legal right, but to make that decision calls into question their competence, as far as I am concerned.

Interesting topic... good on ya, BH.

Originally posted by jd140
When did anyone carry an automatic rifle to a political rally.

Please provide a link that shows someone brought an automatic weapon to a rally.

The term "automatic rifle" is, in civilian settings, widely accepted verbal shorthand for "semi-automatic rifle", as opposed to bolt action or lever action or single shot rifle.