Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Secret Service 'Aware Of' Gun-Toter And Pastor's Prayers For Obama To Die

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:50 AM
Original message
Secret Service 'Aware Of' Gun-Toter And Pastor's Prayers For Obama To Die
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 11:56 AM by RamboLiberal
Asked about pastor Steven Anderson and gun-toter Chris Broughton's repeated wishes for President Barack Obama to die, Special Agent Darrin Blackford of the Secret Service sends along this statement:

"We are aware of the situation and appropriate follow up will be conducted."

Broughton is the member of Anderson's Faithful Word Baptist Church who brought an AR-15 rifle and a hand gun to an Obama event in Phoenix earlier this month. Anderson later confirmed to TPMmuckraker that just 24 hours before that show of arms-bearing, Broughton attended the pastor's fiery sermon in which he prayed for "Obama to melt like a snail tonight" for being a "socialist devil, murderer, infanticide."

And yesterday, Broughton and Anderson took their statements even further, with the pastor saying he'd like Obama to die of brain cancer like Ted Kennedy, and Broughton for the first time publicly saying that he, too, would like the president to be dead.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/secre...

The violent anti-Obama sentiment coming out of central Arizona managed to get still more toxic over the weekend.

Chris Broughton, the man who brought an AR-15 rifle and a handgun to an Arizona Obama rally earlier this month, says he "concurs" with his fundamentalist pastor's prayer for President Obama "to die and go to hell."

And in an interview with a local TV station, pastor Steven Anderson himself elaborated on his statement to TPMmuckraker that he would prefer Obama to die of natural causes so "he's not some martyr."

"I don't want him to be a martyr, we don't need another holiday. I'd like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer," Anderson now says.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/gun_t...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. Round 'em up for a Patriot Act mass detention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #1
22. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
40. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
41. Sounds familiar..
pretty sure that has been done before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
46. They would certainly deserve it, at least in form to teach them
that their certainly it would only be used against "terrorists" was delusional.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
54. karma is going to kick their asses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AspenRose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
2. Lovely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caliman73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. I guess some one is going to be getting a visit from the Secret Service
What idiots. As much as I detested Bush and thought he was not legitimately our president, I never once thought that he should die. I definitely wished for his arrest and conviction for the crimes he allowed and participated in during his administration, but not once did I wish bodily harm on him. I hope the Secret Service can find enough information on these idiots for a prosecution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. I don't want him to get a "visit"
A "visit" is when a buddy comes over to your house to watch the football game. The Secret Service needs to haul this asshole out of his house in handcuffs and ship him off to the Supermax in Colorado.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caliman73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #9
29. First..."visit" is a euphamism for an investigation. Second....
Unlike the Bush administration, the Obama administration is trying to restore the rule of law and the rule of reason. I understand that when emotions are raised there is a desire to retaliate. However, there needs to be an investigation to see if there is evidence on which these guys can be "hauled off" to the Supermax. If indeed there is, then by all means haul away. If the government goes in and hauls people in for skating on thin ice around free speech, then we give the crazies legitimacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. I smell a teachable moment. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. How Christ-Like of Pastor Anderson. I hope all you good christians here
are proud of him, and the many thousands of similar "good christians" who have put our nation in the condition is it now in.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KittyWampus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Why would "good christians here" be proud of him? Are you yet another DU bigot?
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 12:10 PM by KittyWampus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I'm not aware of any DUers who support Anderson, but
there were many who supported the gun-toter. Many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. We don't support the gun-toter's view but.....
We just didn't want his rights or everyone's rights (Especially the 2nd) crushed in a fear-induced frenzy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Hmmm
Let's see, if Person A prays for Person B's painful demise, and Person C (who believes fervently in Person A's "gospel") arrives in the presence of Person B armed with a rifle, who do you suppose is the bigger threat to Person B?

But let us not be frenzied or fearful: It's just a Holy Relic of the High Church of Redemptive Violence, and there's nothing to suggest that any criminal action will definitely take place. Although if it does, whoo-whee! it'll be a doozy! But is that any reason to take a pre-emptive action?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Lots of strawmen in there...
1) Person C was never "in the presence of Person B" to do that he would either need to be inside the security bubble or the secret Service totally screwed up at their job.

2) Person C doesn't necessarily take ANYTHING Person A says as "gospel". Gospel is the word of God and in many Christian sects a Preacher can't speak for God. The Preacher asking God to "smite" Obama carries no more weight than you asking God to give you a billion dollars.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Close enough for jazz
I'd say someone within range of the rifle qualifies as being in their presence.

As for the word "gospel" which I deliberately put into quotation marks, pertained in this instance to Person A's "good news", which was the subject of their preaching. It's sort of a allusional, metaphorical thing; unsurprising that not everyone would get it, but a bit surprising that someone would take the trouble to post in such detail that he or she doesn't get it.

But thank you for your concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. So all weapons within rifle range?
Max range on a .308 Winchester is about half a mile. So everything within a one mile diameter should be gun free?

One out of 3 homes has a firearm. Want to guess how many homes are within one mile? How many cars? How many people lawful carrying weapons totally unrelated to the Presidential event.

Of course that doesn't even get into the Constitutional issues.

The govt can't infringe or restrict just because they "can", but rather because they "must" and only as narrowly as possible, using the least restrictive means possible.

Of course you were aware of Strict Scrutiny right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

You were aware that just having a compelling interest (protecting the President) isn't sufficient to restrict a right. The govt must also show that the method was as narrowly tailored as possible and the least restrictive means to accomplish the compelling interest.

Of course you also put 2 + 2 together and realized that if you limit firearms to the line of sight to the President you are protecting a govt interest, using a method tailored as narrowly as possible and using the least restrictive means.

Thus banning weapons that are in a position to bring harm to the President = Constitutional.
Banning all weapons (even those incapable of harming the President) in a mile wide diameter = Unconstitutional.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
45. Oh, and it turns out . . .
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 06:21 PM by gratuitous
While Mr. Broughton is apparently bright enough not to make a direct threat with his rifle-toting appearance, he's not bright enough to say that he definitely wouldn't take a pot shot at the president if the opportunity presented itself. In the name of God, and all that:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/gun_t...

In an interview with ABC 15 outside the storefront Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Broughton said of Anderson's controversial August 16 "Why I Hate Barack Obama" sermon: "I concur, I think we'd be better off if God would send {Obama} where he's going now instead of later. {Obama} is destroying our country."


Yeah, nothing to worry about from this guy. Keeping an eye on him is probably sufficient. No sense doing anything out of fear. After all, we're talking about holy relics here from an incomplete reading and understanding of a constitutional amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #45
50. Care to elaborate?
"an incomplete reading and understanding of a constitutional amendment"


Care to elaborate on that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
56. Actually, max range of a .308 is between 2 and 3.5 miles,
though that's not the same as effective range. Effective range would be the roughly-half-mile figure.

http://www.jbmballistics.com/~jbm/cgi-bin/jbmdist-5.0.c...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. And I certainly hope the pastor meets with similar results....
Still waitin' on the diety to lay that cash on me...I gave enough to him when I was in catholic school, hope he invested it wisely.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I heard he bought lots of subprime mortgages, his broker told him it was a "sure thing". n/t
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 02:20 PM by Statistical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. Shit, there goes
my afterlife....

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Read this for the gun-toter's view
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2009/08/my_cha...

I also posted more later in this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. But....but....you support his right to cary a firearm into
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 01:27 PM by MineralMan
the area where the POTUS is about to make an appearance. Obviously, he was not vetted in advance, but appears to be a threat to the POTUS.

Sometimes the need to protect the POTUS outweighs the right of nutcases to carry firearms in his near vicinity. Never before this President was in office would someone have been allowed to do that. Nothing of the sort would have been allowed during Bush's presidency, I can assure you.

Stubborn insistence that individual rights to be armed outweigh all other considerations is stupid, and may lead to consequences that will restrict the rights of ALL firearms owners, not just these nutcases.

Be sensible. You're not preaching to the choir in this discussion as you do in the gungeon. If you do not make sense, you'll get called on that. Many DUers who own firearms do not regularly participate in gungeon discussions, but when the folly that is the currency there leaks out into GD, you'll hear from us.

I do not want the nutcase 2nd Amendment folks to interfere with my rights by insisting on irrational priviledge.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. He did NOT bring a weapon into the area where Obama was making an appearance.
Secret Service DOES ban firearms in the area where the President makes an appearance. Had he attempted to bring a weapon past the security checkpoint he would be in jail or dead right now.

They DON'T ban weapons outside the area because that is not a threat to the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. You just go right on and defend this idiot.
I give up. Just don't be surprised when this all backfires and the restrictions get even stronger. I'm fed up with the all-or-nothing 2nd Amendment rights people. They're now working to force even stronger restrictions by insisting that nutcases bearing arms are fine at public gatherings.

You will reap what you sow, and you'll end up costing me my rights. No thank you very much.

I'm also a firearms owner, with a CCW, and I would not, under any circumstances, carry in a situation like the one at that protest. Not a chance. Things are volatile enough already.

I won't argue with you in the gungeon, but I sure will in GD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. Strawman after strawman
1) I think the guy is an idiot but what he did is lawful and I don't see a Constitutional method to stop what he is doing (carrying a block away from the President where President is in no risk of being injured).

2) All or nothing? Wouldn't all or nothing be advocating he should have a weapon in front row of the location where Obama was given a speech.

There are restrictions, those restrictions are Constitutional, those restrictions protected the life of the President. The President sees no need for more restrictions, the Secret Service sees no need for more restrictions.

If hypothetically you extended the gun free zone from what is needed to 200m beyond what is needed guess what will happen at 201m? You got it someone will carry a gun. Someone will be carrying a gun "NEAR" the gun free zone. So should we push it to 500m? Well at 501m someone will carry a gun? 1 kmm? the entire section of the city, the entire city?

You will reap what you sow, and you'll end up costing me my rights. No thank you very much.

So sad that you fear your govt so much.

If your "right" can be taken away arbitrarily by the govt then it never was a right to begin with. Either it is a right or it is a privilege. If you consider the ability to own and carry a firearm a privelidge then you are right the govt could take it away from you since you a subject and the govt gives you permission to do so. If it is a right then the govt has no lawful authority to take it away from you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. Rights have been taken away many times...
And they can be taken away again. You're playing semantic games, and that's a familiar tactic.

I won't play those games with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Well if you think rights being taken away is a "semantic game" then THAT is the problem.
Any govt that takes away rights is tyrannical.
Any tyrannical govt doesn't need an excuse for its actions.
It will find someone or something to blame it on.

If you live in constant fear that the actions of others will cause you to lose your "rights" then I hate to be the bearer of bad news you long ago surrendered those rights for privileges to be issued or revoked by the govt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #19
34. Valid points but I'm coming from a different direction.
I'm a CCW holder and a gun owner but I wouldn't carry to a rally or protest but I'm not going to get on board with outlawing it. I believe it's a slippery slope situation. You ban them in one area, you make it easier to ban in another.

I think the practice of bringing guns will fall off as the shock value wears off. It's political tactic and once they realize it doesn't work, they'll move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
26. By "bigot" if you mean I am against religion, than I certainly am.
No greater scam in the history of the world-even politicians have to take a back seat to religion.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #6
32. Thank you for speaking up ~ I'm Christian and it is hurtful
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 03:20 PM by goclark
for people to speak of my religion in that manner.

I would never be supportive of the person in question.

For Example : I am also African American and I would never say ---"White people hate/hated Black people."

That is just wrong.

I've heard people say they hate Catholics because they don't believe in Abortion ~ wrong again, I know many Catholics that don't agree with that aspect of the church and they are still
drvoted Catholics and take great strength from their faith.

Thank you

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. This guy belongs in jail
Protecting the president is more important than technicalities in the law or the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. couldn't find the sarcasm smilie?
Edited on Mon Aug-31-09 01:52 PM by onenote
on edit: maybe the guy belongs in jail, but only if doing so would be consistent with the Constitution. The assertion that protecting the president is more important than the Constitution sounds awfully close to the rationale used by chimpy and his gang to subvert the Constitution in the interest of supposedly protecting the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #7
43. Technically, neither pose an imminent or viable threat to the president.
So neither belong in jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
11. Of course the SS is aware of them.
I glad that Obama and the SS aren't giving to the fear and threats like Shrub would have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. I find it hard to believe
Very rarely does the SS make statements and never do they mention a agents by name. A close friend of mine was a SS agent. He's now retired. We still shoot together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ocracoker16 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. I found it hard to believe so I did some research
Darrin Blackford is a spokesman for the Secret Service. He is also a special agent, but in this case he is acting as spokesman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
36. That is out of the ordinary
Vary rare indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ocracoker16 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #36
48. Here are links that mention him as a SS spokesman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
michreject Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. I didn't doubt you
Just that it's rare to hear of a field agent by name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
14. Report from the church in Phoenix New Times
-----

We then got down to brass tacks, and he affirmed that he'd like to see President Obama deader than a doorknob.

"It would be good for the country if he were to go sooner than later," said Broughton, no doubt making his ma really proud.

Even if someone kills him, I wondered?

"However it happens, I'm going be happy that it happens," he boasted. "I'm gonna be a happy man...I would rejoice."

Then Broughton removed all doubt that he's an idiot by asserting ye ole Adolf Hitler comparison, a sure sign that you have no argument, or originality. He asked me if it would have been better if somone had taken Hitler out back in the day, suggesting it would be equally cool if Obama got similar treatment.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2009/08/my_cha...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 01:07 PM
Response to Original message
18. Another racist hiding behind a "church"
We have them here in NW Arkansas. They used to be KKK, but segued into a "church" which routinely sends out mass mailings using selected and edited Bible passages to back up their message of hate and intolerance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
28. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
31. Sorry SS, but this would never had happen at a Bush/Cheney anything.
Do your dam jobs! Fucking wankers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #31
39. Actually, I heard that at least one liberal open carried at a Bush/Cheney event...
During the last administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PCIntern Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. citation, please...
I had not heard that...

I thank you in advance...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armyowalgreens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. I don't know if I can find it. Another DUer posted it a couple weeks ago...
And I didn't save the link. Sorry.


I'll try searching the web for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sheltiemama Donating Member (892 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
47. I suspect "aware of" is an understatement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubledamerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
51. But REVEREND WRIGHT is a RADICAL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-31-09 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. You Win! /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TicketyBoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
53. I'm afraid I don't understand
how they can let someone walk around displaying firearms anywhere close to Obama when people with something as innocuous as signs couldn't come anywhere close to Bush. Did they think people were going to club Bush with the signs?

This really is craziness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
704wipes Donating Member (966 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #53
55. I went to a Bush protest and was told "no signs on a stick"
sticks aren't in the second amendment, I guess ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. If you staged your own protest offsite, you could have brought whatever was legal to possess
under state law, as long as you were outside the restricted zone, which was the case here.

These clowns were offsite and staged their own little protest for the cameras and gullible reporters; they were not with the President, though I'm sure they certainly don't mind being thought to have been closer than they actually were. They also didn't seem to mind the media thinking the unloaded rifle was loaded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TicketyBoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-01-09 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. I hadn't heard about the rifle, but
the guy in New Hampshire told Chris Matthews his sidearm was loaded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. You're correct, and the pistols at the Arizona offsite protest probably were as well.
The RW-orchestrated Official Media Freakout was primary about the ZOMG SCAWWY looking rifle, though, which was in fact unloaded, with an empty magazine inserted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 01st 2014, 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC