Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Racism, MSNBC Style

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    550

    Racism, MSNBC Style


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post

    I had actually seen other pictures of the gun-toter before, so I knew what race he was.

    This actually boggles my mind. It just seems like a really stupid stunt to pull.
    Too easy for a co-worker to point out "The guy was black".
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    MSNBC's obviously biased reporting aside...

    Does anyone else find it disturbing that we are getting all in a twist over something that isn't even illegal? Like guns or not...we have rights guaranteed by that constitution thing. It's easy for some to look at these incidents as a white man menacingly carrying a gun, or a black man pulling a "really stupid stunt". It seems to be very difficult for most people to see them as Americans exercising their rights. I find that sad.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    That video clip shows no context. Was this just an opinion piece? If so than so what? It was simply just an ignorant comment. I can't tell from that clip if they were actually trying to deliver a news story.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Does anyone else find it disturbing that we are getting all in a twist over something that isn't even illegal? Like guns or not...we have rights guaranteed by that constitution thing. It's easy for some to look at these incidents as a white man menacingly carrying a gun, or a black man pulling a "really stupid stunt". It seems to be very difficult for most people to see them as Americans exercising their rights. I find that sad.
    Yeah, it is sad but not much you can do about it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Does anyone else find it disturbing that we are getting all in a twist over something that isn't even illegal? Like guns or not...we have rights guaranteed by that constitution thing. It's easy for some to look at these incidents as a white man menacingly carrying a gun, or a black man pulling a "really stupid stunt". It seems to be very difficult for most people to see them as Americans exercising their rights. I find that sad.
    During the 2008 election day, black men were arrested outside a voting precinct.
    These black men were allegedly members of the "Black Panthers".
    One who was arrested was carrying a night stick.

    No assault took place. Some people claimed they "felt" intimidated, but the same could be said for people around the current situation involving a much more deadly weapon.

    Do you think the Black Panthers were falsely arrested?


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Does anyone else find it disturbing that we are getting all in a twist over something that isn't even illegal?
    You mean like abortion???
    < end sarcasm >
    Last edited by foundit66; 08-23-2009 at 05:39 PM.
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    During the 2008 election day, black men were arrested outside a voting precinct.
    These black men were allegedly members of the "Black Panthers".
    One who was arrested was carrying a night stick.

    No assault took place. Some people claimed they "felt" intimidated, but the same could be said for people around the current situation involving a much more deadly weapon.

    Do you think the Black Panthers were falsely arrested?
    You mean the black panther? There was only 1 arrested, the one who was carrying a night stick and allegedly attempted to bar some people entrance into the building. The other man dressed in black panther garb was a registered poll watcher who lived in the building, and he was rightfully allowed to stay. And they weren't "allegedly" black panthers, they were black panthers. King Samir Shabazz (the man with the nightstick) was the leader of the local chapter of the NBPP, and Jerry Jackson (the man who was allowed to stay) was the chapters Chief of Staff. It happened right here in Philadelphia, so yes, I have heard quite a bit about this.

    As far as should Shabazz have been arrested...absolutely. The simple act of blocking entrance to a polling station should be enough to get anyone arrested. As far as the weapon...depends. Had he had it in a holster on his hip, then I would personally not have a problem with it. It is the act of carrying it in hand while blocking a door and saying that you are "tired of white supremacy" that seems to me to be over the top. Had either of the men with guns actually taken them in hand I would have gladly seen them arrested as well (and would have even found it justified if they had been shot). It is the act of displaying a weapon in a ready to use state when there is no reason to do so that bothers me. Simply carrying said night stick or gun on ones person doesn't bother me in the slightest...even if it is done by a radical extremist like Shabazz.

    You mean like abortion???
    < end sarcasm >
    You bet. Pro-lifers bother me as much as anti-gunners.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128
    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    You mean the black panther? There was only 1 arrested, the one who was carrying a night stick and allegedly attempted to bar some people entrance into the building.
    Wielding a night stick? Yes.
    But obviously a gun is much more deadly.

    "allegedly attempted to bar some people entrance"?
    I welcome you to document this claim. There was no such accusation from anybody who was actually there.
    People claimed they "felt intimidated", which can be said of any member in the crowd near a gun-toter.


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    And they weren't "allegedly" black panthers, they were black panthers. King Samir Shabazz (the man with the nightstick) was the leader of the local chapter of the NBPP, and Jerry Jackson (the man who was allowed to stay) was the chapters Chief of Staff. It happened right here in Philadelphia, so yes, I have heard quite a bit about this.

    As far as should Shabazz have been arrested...absolutely. The simple act of blocking entrance to a polling station should be enough to get anyone arrested.
    Document this claim.
    I have seen several news reports on this issue.
    NONE of them claim that any of them "blocked entrance".
    "Felt intimidated" was repeated over and over again.
    NOT EVEN THE CHARGES claim "blocked entrance".


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    As far as the weapon...depends. Had he had it in a holster on his hip, then I would personally not have a problem with it. It is the act of carrying it in hand while blocking a door and saying that you are "tired of white supremacy" that seems to me to be over the top.
    Does the right to carry a weapon maintain that it has to be in the holster?
    And last I checked, talking is still free speech.
    You may think "over the top", and I will agree, but that doesn't make it any less protected by the first amendment.


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    Had either of the men with guns actually taken them in hand I would have gladly seen them arrested as well (and would have even found it justified if they had been shot). It is the act of displaying a weapon in a ready to use state when there is no reason to do so that bothers me. Simply carrying said night stick or gun on ones person doesn't bother me in the slightest...even if it is done by a radical extremist like Shabazz.
    So you are saying that the right to bear arms does not cover actually carrying the firearm?
    Is that your position?
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    Wielding a night stick? Yes.
    But obviously a gun is much more deadly.

    "allegedly attempted to bar some people entrance"?
    I welcome you to document this claim. There was no such accusation from anybody who was actually there.
    People claimed they "felt intimidated", which can be said of any member in the crowd near a gun-toter.
    They allegedly attempted to block this mans entrance. Note I say "allegedly", and "attempted". I have not convicted them of anything, I am merely reporting what I saw that day splashed all over the local news.

    There are other videos of poll watchers who were denied access at other locations in Philadelphia as well.

    Does the right to carry a weapon maintain that it has to be in the holster?
    Laws differ from state to state, so I will use PA law. PA law states that open carry is allowed without a LTCF. Open carry in a holster cannot be considered threatening behavior. PA also has no "brandishing laws", however inappropriate display or brandishing (gun in hand, or waving gun around, or pointing gun at people) can be considered terroristic threats or the like.

    I would imagine that it is the same for all weapons, not just guns.

    And last I checked, talking is still free speech.
    You may think "over the top", and I will agree, but that doesn't make it any less protected by the first amendment.
    Right. Gold star for you.

    So you are saying that the right to bear arms does not cover actually carrying the firearm?
    Is that your position?
    Nope. That is not my position.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post

    There is not even an "alleged".
    This guy CLEARLY states he walked up and ENTERED THE BUILDING.
    They DID NOT stop him. There was NO attempt.
    NO ALLEGATION.

    There was no "alleged" or "attempted" blocking.


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    There are other videos of poll watchers who were denied access at other locations in Philadelphia as well.
    If they are like this one, talking to a guy who ENTERED WITH NO DIFFICULTY, then that's just lame and pathetic.
    No "blocking" at all.


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    Laws differ from state to state, so I will use PA law. PA law states that open carry is allowed without a LTCF. Open carry in a holster cannot be considered threatening behavior. PA also has no "brandishing laws", however inappropriate display or brandishing (gun in hand, or waving gun around, or pointing gun at people) can be considered terroristic threats or the like.
    Fine.
    I will happily "consider" that when I see a man carrying a gun (i.e. not holstered), it will be interpreted as a "terroristic threat" and I will report it as such.

    And if the legal system disagrees, like they obviously disagreed in this black panther case, that should be fine with everybody, correct?

    With the Black Panthers, my consistency is that they SHOULD be prosecuted. (Even if just the one with the night stick).
    The first man with the gun was carrying a sign that CLEARLY advocated for Obama's blood, and he was carrying a gun.
    The ACTUAL MESSAGE being sent (black panther vs gun toter) was a MORE DIRECT THREAT. A sign advocating for Obama's blood is MORE of a threat than what these black panthers said.
    The gun? Obviously a more deadly weapon.

    If the law wants to make a difference on how the gun is utilized (stays in a holster vs tapping a nightstick), then obviously a similar application would be applicable for the gun toter as well. He just better not remove that gun or holster in public unless he wants to invite a possible arrest.
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    There is not even an "alleged".
    This guy CLEARLY states he walked up and ENTERED THE BUILDING.
    They DID NOT stop him. There was NO attempt.
    NO ALLEGATION.

    There was no "alleged" or "attempted" blocking.
    I guess you missed terms like "directly in front of the door" and "closed ranks". That to me indicates someone who is attempting to obstruct.

    If they are like this one, talking to a guy who ENTERED WITH NO DIFFICULTY, then that's just lame and pathetic.
    No "blocking" at all.
    I just found a video yesterday where a properly credentialed poll watcher was refused entrance by poll workers here in Philly. Rather amateur video, but the illegal refusal by the poll workers is obvious. One of them even goes so far as to tell the poll watcher that he does not have a poll watchers certificate when he is holding it up right in front of her.
    Here it is

    Fine.
    I will happily "consider" that when I see a man carrying a gun (i.e. not holstered), it will be interpreted as a "terroristic threat" and I will report it as such.
    I think you miss the point. If you walked down into the subway and found a man swining a baseball bat, might you consider it a bit intimidating? Sure you would. Why? Because there is no legitimate reason for someone to be swinging a baseball bat in a subway. If you saw him on the baseball field doing so, you wouldn't give it a second thought. Likewise, if he waas in the subway and had the bat sticking out of the top of a gym bag, you probably wouldn't give him a second glance.

    I need to get ready for work, I'll get to the rest later or perhaps tomorrow.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    I guess you missed terms like "directly in front of the door" and "closed ranks". That to me indicates someone who is attempting to obstruct.
    "attempting to"???
    Please recognize HE GOT THROUGH.
    There was NO ASSAULT charges. NOTHING beyond "intimidation".

    Whatever exaggeration he is using, it does not diminish the fact that he entered with NO physical confrontation.
    Sounds like NO "obstruction"...


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    I just found a video yesterday where a properly credentialed poll watcher was refused entrance by poll workers here in Philly. Rather amateur video, but the illegal refusal by the poll workers is obvious. One of them even goes so far as to tell the poll watcher that he does not have a poll watchers certificate when he is holding it up right in front of her.
    Here it is
    This is completely different than what we were talking about.
    This is clearly moving away from the topic matter.
    I read one comment about how video cameras are not allowed in the polling areas (unconfirmed), but the youtube video clearly shows one approach where the video camera was left behind.
    I have no doubt that voting impropriety takes place.
    There were plenty of videos after the 2000 election as well, showing polling problems in Florida.
    For the life of me, I don't understand how these issues aren't responded to more seriously.
    It's like nobody cares on either side...


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    I think you miss the point. If you walked down into the subway and found a man swining a baseball bat, might you consider it a bit intimidating? Sure you would.
    And if I see a man carrying a gun, carrying a sign asking for the blood of Obama, I find that intimidating too...

    I think you fail to recognize my position.
    I am saying the Black Panther member was RIGHTFULLY arrested, and that the gun-toter ALSO demonstrated a clear threat.

    I am saying that I see a serious problem in consistency with some people saying that the Black Panther member should have been arrested and convicted, yet complain that the guy carrying the gun and the anti-Obama sign should be ignored as "free speech".


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    Why? Because there is no legitimate reason for someone to be swinging a baseball bat in a subway. If you saw him on the baseball field doing so, you wouldn't give it a second thought. Likewise, if he waas in the subway and had the bat sticking out of the top of a gym bag, you probably wouldn't give him a second glance.
    Free speech...
    I see a very thin line inbetween saying "a guy can carry a gun and a sign asking the president's blood" and "people were at a polling place carrying a nightstick and using their first amendment speech".
    I personally find both to be over MY line.

    Here's another issue...
    What happens if Black Panthers start showing up, carrying guns, to "protest" those who bring guns to Obama's area???
    Do we just wait until somebody starts shooting?


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    I need to get ready for work, I'll get to the rest later or perhaps tomorrow.
    Okay.
    You're actually the only one to broach the issue, and I've tried to discuss the issue on a couple boards.
    Last edited by foundit66; 08-26-2009 at 01:52 AM.
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Under your bed, waiting for you to fall asleep.
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    "attempting to"???
    Please recognize HE GOT THROUGH.
    There was NO ASSAULT charges. NOTHING beyond "intimidation".
    Hence the reason I used words like "attempting" and "alleged". I was watching the news quite close that day, and I remember the initial reports all over the local news of "black panthers potentially blocking entrance to people at polling stations". I was not there, so I can only go by what was reported by the media. And yes, I will agree that the hyperbole seen on Fox News is often times given a rightward slant, just as MSNBC leans to the left. I take many reports from these 2 outlets very lightly.

    This is completely different than what we were talking about.
    This is clearly moving away from the topic matter.
    I read one comment about how video cameras are not allowed in the polling areas (unconfirmed), but the youtube video clearly shows one approach where the video camera was left behind.
    I have no doubt that voting impropriety takes place.
    There were plenty of videos after the 2000 election as well, showing polling problems in Florida.
    For the life of me, I don't understand how these issues aren't responded to more seriously.
    It's like nobody cares on either side...
    I only provided the example because I had mentioned the other videos. Iagree it is a bit off topic, but yet it is all symptomatic of a bigger problem...that of people playing politics at a place that should be sanitized of any political agendas and bias.

    And if I see a man carrying a gun, carrying a sign asking for the blood of Obama, I find that intimidating too...
    You must first believe that his sign was calling for the blood of Obama. I think that is a lttle bit of a stretch. I don't believe the words Obama or blood were on the man's sign.

    I think you fail to recognize my position.
    I am saying the Black Panther member was RIGHTFULLY arrested, and that the gun-toter ALSO demonstrated a clear threat.
    I see the major difference as how the weapon was displayed, just as the law does as well. The black panther wrongfully claimed to be "security" which he clearly was not, and he was holding the weapon and according to some "tapping it menacingly" while making comments about "being tired of you white supremacists". I would agree that had the man had a sign ssaying kill Obama, or had been holding the gun, then yes..toss the cuffs on him and take him away. I do not however find a man wearing a gun on his hip an intimidating gesture, and probably never will. This is simply where we part company on the issue. I grew up around guns, and am proud to be a responsible gun owner and "toter" as well. It seems as though PA law agrees with me (as I am sure other states are certain to as well) that a holstered gun cannot in the eyes of the law as a threat.

    I am saying that I see a serious problem in consistency with some people saying that the Black Panther member should have been arrested and convicted, yet complain that the guy carrying the gun and the anti-Obama sign should be ignored as "free speech".
    I have no problem with the black panther standing anywhere exercising his right to free speech. I do have a problem with the him claiming to be "security" and holding the night stick in his hand without any sort of provocation.

    Free speech...
    I see a very thin line inbetween saying "a guy can carry a gun and a sign asking the president's blood" and "people were at a polling place carrying a nightstick and using their first amendment speech".
    I personally find both to be over MY line.
    Again, had the night stick been holstered, I don't think I would have had that much of a problem with it. And had the gun been unholstered, I would have seriously wondered why the cops or the SS didn't shoot the guy. And again, I don't find his sign to be especially bothersom anyway.

    Here's another issue...
    What happens if Black Panthers start showing up, carrying guns, to "protest" those who bring guns to Obama's area???
    Do we just wait until somebody starts shooting?
    If the black panthers are within the law to do so, then I would hope we would do nothing more than keep an eye on them like the police and SS did with the man. You can't go locking people up for exercising their rights. I leave that to trained law enforcement officers on the scene to make a determination of who is posing a threat and who is not posing a threat.
    "Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and monkeys do too (if they have a gun)". -Eddie Izzard

    Long is the way
    And hard, that out of Hell leads up to Light. -Milton

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    5,128

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit View Post
    Hence the reason I used words like "attempting" and "alleged". I was watching the news quite close that day, and I remember the initial reports all over the local news of "black panthers potentially blocking entrance to people at polling stations". I was not there, so I can only go by what was reported by the media. And yes, I will agree that the hyperbole seen on Fox News is often times given a rightward slant, just as MSNBC leans to the left. I take many reports from these 2 outlets very lightly.
    Let's examine those two words individually...
    1) "Attempting"
    To me, to proclaim somebody "attempted" to do something you have to show some sort of good reason to assess it as an "attempt".
    If I say somebody "attempted" to block my entrance into a building, I want to know what they actually did. Did they stand in front of the door and refuse to move?
    The article talks about "closing ranks", which is a ridiculously vague term. They could have "closed ranks" to the side of the door.
    I don't know, but when it comes to things like this I notice when they miss saying something obvious and just imply it.
    The guy doesn't say that they "moved out of the way", so it leaves me to wonder if they closed ranks for the purposes of leaving no gap to the door, how did he get in?
    It sounds to me like he had a way to get in despite their positioning. I believe their move was to intimidate more than to physically obstruct. To give a semblance of potential violence, when all they were going to do is position themselves and claim "free speech" in order to obfuscate.

    2) "alleged"...
    I find it interesting that just this guy "alleges" this.
    Using language that leaves some things that might be assumed, but unstated.
    I understand he alleges it.
    But at the same time it is up to a judge to address the substance of his allegation, and as such one could "allege" that the judge rejected his allegation.

    Again, to be perfectly clear, I really wish those charges had not been dropped. I wish this black panther had been convicted.
    My consistency is against intimidation of brandishing weapons.

    Your consistency is drawn in a different way, and I understand your position while I disagree with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    I only provided the example because I had mentioned the other videos. Iagree it is a bit off topic, but yet it is all symptomatic of a bigger problem...that of people playing politics at a place that should be sanitized of any political agendas and bias.
    Gotcha.
    And I do appreciate the video. It was incredibly disturbing and am deeply frustrated that little / nothing ever comes from general things of this nature.


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    You must first believe that his sign was calling for the blood of Obama. I think that is a lttle bit of a stretch. I don't believe the words Obama or blood were on the man's sign.
    The man's sign said: "It Is Time To Water The Tree Of Liberty."
    That is referencing a line written by Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    THAT is what he was saying the "Tree of Liberty" should be watered with.
    Surely we can agree he wasn't thinking it was time for a garden hose to be used?

    Which leaves the question of which "tyrant" was he looking for the blood of?
    Well gee. WHERE did he go?
    To Obama's town hall area...

    I sincerely fail to see ANY other real interpretation.
    What do you think he was saying?


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    I see the major difference as how the weapon was displayed, just as the law does as well. The black panther wrongfully claimed to be "security" which he clearly was not, and he was holding the weapon and according to some "tapping it menacingly" while making comments about "being tired of you white supremacists".
    First of all, statements are supposedly free speech.
    Secondly, I could argue it is just as much of a stretch from going from "tired of you white supremacists" to advocating violence...
    Quite frankly, on the "free speech" line, his statements alone mean nothing.

    As for the weapon, I understand your position but the "menacingly" line is obviously up for interpretation.
    I personally believe it to be accurate, but for people who are willing to give more latitude towards the "tree of liberty" gun-toter there should be consistency.

    Regardless, I agree that "tapping" the nightstick is a serious issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    I would agree that had the man had a sign ssaying kill Obama, or had been holding the gun, then yes..toss the cuffs on him and take him away. I do not however find a man wearing a gun on his hip an intimidating gesture, and probably never will. This is simply where we part company on the issue. I grew up around guns, and am proud to be a responsible gun owner and "toter" as well. It seems as though PA law agrees with me (as I am sure other states are certain to as well) that a holstered gun cannot in the eyes of the law as a threat.
    I have heard different people try to make up reasons as to why he supposedly had a gun there.
    Like he was supposedly protecting himself, which is absurd at face value.
    The guy only created more of a threat for himself by carrying the gun there.

    The sign is clear.
    I have yet to see anybody give any competing interpretation of that sign.
    The gun? The message is also clear.
    I think he was relaying an empty threat, but a threat nonetheless.

    For the black panther situation, do you really think that if the nightstick had been in some holster at his side, but still prominently visible, that people would not have felt intimidated?
    I think they would have.
    And my personal position is that such intimidation has no valid place in America. (note I said valid and not legal. there is a distinction)
    My personal interpretation is that there are wayyy too many people these days who feel that "intimidation" is an intelligent method of freedom of speech.


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    I have no problem with the black panther standing anywhere exercising his right to free speech. I do have a problem with the him claiming to be "security" and holding the night stick in his hand without any sort of provocation.
    A lot of what I say is regarding the generic position I get from others.
    And as such, was not truly broaching your position in a lot of ways.
    I understand your consistency, although I would like to explore the "tree of liberty" sign further.

    But also, I can't help but think of some 60-year old woman who is going to vote, who sees a black panther member at her voting precinct.
    The thought that all he had to do was not say "security" and keep his nightstick holstered...
    Scratch that. He could even have replaced the nightstick with a gun and just kept it holstered...
    The message to that 60-year old woman would have been clear.

    I understand that there are a lot of people who carry guns WITHOUT the intent to intimidate or threaten.
    But for the guy with the sign? Showing up at the president's town hall?
    The president who has received four times the death threats of the previous president?

    Neither that 60-year old woman nor the president should have to put up with such "intimidation".
    But again, we come back to a LEGAL line, because the above talks about "should have to" and not what should be illegal.

    I am reminded of two people who showed up at a Bush event wearing anti-Bush t-shirts. They were arrested.
    Then we have this guy who wore a gun, for a president that supposedly is coming for everybody's guns...
    I seriously hope some people appreciate the irony that THAT guy got to keep his, although I doubt it will impact people's beliefs on the issue of Obama coming for people's guns...


    Quote Originally Posted by snakespit
    If the black panthers are within the law to do so, then I would hope we would do nothing more than keep an eye on them like the police and SS did with the man. You can't go locking people up for exercising their rights. I leave that to trained law enforcement officers on the scene to make a determination of who is posing a threat and who is not posing a threat.
    I personally split the issues of "should he be doing this" and "legality".
    A LOT of what I have been talking about revolves around the simple "should he be doing this", invoking a question of whether reasonable people should find such actions repugnant.

    Regarding legality, I understand that Americans have some freedoms to act repugnantly. There needs to be some level of freedom to do so, and restricting freedom NEEDS to be based on more than just "repugnance".
    I personally think there should be a law controlling firearms within a certain range of the president. Safety issue.
    Like there were laws controlling firearms within a certain range of schoolyards, but the gun lobby got that law stricken down as unconstitutional.
    So it's currently legal for somebody to take a gun to a school area, carrying a sign which could be reasonably interpreted as threatening the kids.

    But if that were to happen, you can be that the cops would take care of such a guy, "escorting" him out of there...
    And you can bet that there would NOT be a chorus of "but he's using first / second amendment" to protest either...

    You can bet that there would be a LOT of similar scenarios where the cops wouldn't put up with this type of crud. Possibly similar to the way that the two people wearing anti-Bush t-shirts were dealt with, without lasting legal repercussions.
    But for Obama? Of course he has to put up with it...
    And the right won't cut him ANY slack in recognizing that he did...
    "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.
    You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."
    *** Jamie Raskin

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
    I had actually seen other pictures of the gun-toter before, so I knew what race he was.

    This actually boggles my mind. It just seems like a really stupid stunt to pull.
    Too easy for a co-worker to point out "The guy was black".
    Media is always going to be seen as some sort of racism unfortunately.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •