It’s gonna be a rip-snortin’, double-barreled bushel of fun when a whole passel of armed homegrown patriots get together next month for a good ol’, downhome Restore The Constitution rally. On August 14, right-wing crazies, er, enthusiasts, complete with openly carried rifles and loaded pistols, will gather at Guilford Courthouse Battleground National Park in Greensboro to “peacefully demand that their government abide by the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights,” according to their announcement. The group says it’s concerned about the government taking away Americans’ constitutional rights, and so they’re doing something about it: Walking around in public with loaded weapons. O-kay, then.
Any doubts about where these guys are coming from was dispelled by their announcement of the rally’s headline speaker: Mike Vanderboegh, one of the more extreme right-wing activists out there. Vanderboegh gained notoriety by urging the formation of armed militias to “deter” the government’s evil scheme to steal everybody’s guns; inciting opponents of health care reform to break out the windows of Democratic headquarters (although he’ll be glad to continue getting his monthly Marxist disability checks from the federal government); and starting the “3-Percenters,” a group that sits around talking to each other on the Internet about how terrible the government is and how they’ll never ever ever give up their guns, by God. Well, we have a few questions for these constitutional scholars:
1. If you’re concerned about the Bill of Rights, where were you guys when Bush & Co. started their completely unconstitutional, wide-ranging wiretaps on U.S. citizens? Or when they started putting people in prison, including American citizens, without charging them or giving them access to the court system? Or deciding that the right of habeas corpus, one of the basic protections of Western Civilization, is crap?
2. You do realize, don’t you, that the current president has not made the slightest move, or shown the slightest inclination, to limit gun rights?
3. You do realize, don’t you, that the current president is the one who signed the law that allows you to parade around with your guns in a National Park?
4. Finally — and an honest answer, please — how would you react if, say, a hundred Black Muslims held a public demonstration — openly armed to the teeth — to “assert our gun rights”?
As James Protzman, of the BlueNC site, aptly put it, these “Hatriots” simply “can’t stand having a black guy in the White House unless he’s a janitor. They ought to be thrilled then, because Obama will spend his entire presidency cleaning up the eight years of mess made by George Bush.”
This article appears in Jul 27 – Aug 2, 2010.
Which of the policies cited in (1) has Obama repealed?
Bush = Obama
Obama = Bush
III percent, WE are everywhere!
So tell me sport;
1) why is that we invite ALL to our gatherings, yet there isn’t a single black member of the journo-list?
2) You do realize that Body Odor currently has Hitlery working with the United Communist Nations to limit gun rights?
3) Ahahhahahhahahah if he wanted to commit the Dumborats to a sure political suicide, just like your boy Billy did in 1994, then all he had to do was veto.
4)An honest answer would be that “I” would uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. The same oath that your boy Barry swore, right before his lapdog Holder dismissed against members of the Black Panther members that were openly armed and intimidating voters in Philadelphia. Why no federal prosecution?
Answer that one oh great revisionist strawman.
Oh Yeah, I didn’t think much of Shrub either. Better than Poodle Boy or John “Swift Boat” Kerry the tax dodger.
Effen Bayh,
Thanks for the most incoherent response I have ever read. Very amusing.
Answers to questions.
1. The people in question supported those against America.
2. He’s not totally stupid.
3. He wants to appear supportive of gun owners.
4. Infiltrators acting as targets for real Americans.
The Oriental acting as a “redneck” is a nice touch. Actor?
1. If you’re concerned about the Bill of Rights, where were you guys when Bush & Co. started their completely unconstitutional, wide-ranging wiretaps on U.S. citizens?
We were there being called loons and anti-American by the GOP.
2. You do realize, don’t you, that the current president has not made the slightest move, or shown the slightest inclination, to limit gun rights?
The rally is not just about gun rights, but look at the State Department’s position on the UN Small Arms treaty.
3. You do realize, don’t you, that the current president is the one who signed the law that allows you to parade around with your guns in a National Park?
The law he sighed was a Consumer Credit Card protection law. The ‘gun’ issue was a rider on that law. So it is disingenuous to pretend Obama is pro-gun based on this.
4. Finally — and an honest answer, please — how would you react if, say, a hundred Black Muslims held a public demonstration — openly armed to the teeth — to “assert our gun rights”?
I would have no problem with it and hopefully some will show up on the 14th of August.
1) I assume you’re referring to illegal combatants… “civilian” insurgents who attack and murder coalition soldiers. All I can say is, if you want the troops to act like cops and read them their rights then you should probably have sent cops (who speak Arabic). If you send warriors, they’ll act like warriors. Go figure, huh? The problem boils down to you not considering this a “war.” In a “war,” the bad guys would wear uniforms and be soldiers, and thus POW’s. But since they don’t wear uniforms, you simply consider them all civilians, and think they should be afforded treatment as such. In many cases, we have intel that would support a conviction, but because of how it was gathered (which could be considered illegal in the US) or handled (soldiers don’t read rights to someone who’s trying to blow them up) or due to the sensitivity of the sources (we don’t want to spend millions of dollars changing our intel efforts because we gave them away in one court case), it would be inadmissible in a court of law. Thus, the problem we have now, where we have guys we “know” are bad, but we can’t “prove” it to guys like you. I agree, it needs to be addressed, as it is STILL GOING ON UNDER OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT. Not sure how you’re tying this back to the 2nd Amendment or gun control, though.
2) The President has previously made ludicrous attempts at gun control as a Senator, including supporting a 500% (it may have been 400%, not positive) increase in tax on all ammunition. Additionally, he surrounds himself with the anti-gun crowd (Hillary, Holder, Sotomayor, to name a few). Some in his cabinet, including the Attorney General, have expressed desire to reinstate the failed “Assault Weapon Ban,” which is simply a ban on certain types of semi-automatic weapons, to include many handguns and their magazines. This is all beside the point, though. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that because something hasn’t happened, that means it’s never going to happen. Do you honestly, HONESTLY, (look yourself in the mirror when you says this) believe that because the Democrats, traditional supporters of stronger gun control and creators of the Assault Weapon Ban, haven’t gotten an anti-gun bill through yet, that means they won’t ever try, especially when they’re in a position of power AND the President is on their side? They’ve done it in the past, and many of them are itching to do it again. Every time they tout a falsified piece of data like “80% of the guns in Mexico of are from the US,” it’s them testing the waters and trying to get the people on their side. But you only have to do a little research to learn that even the GAO, who put out that statistic, says that’s bogus and people are misusing their data. And, as has already been mentioned, there’s the UN global Gun Ban, which our current administration has expressed SUPPORT FOR. If you don’t sense something in the air from all that, then you’re never going to. But let’s be honest, you don’t see yourself having any use for guns, so you think no one else should have them, either, so you’re never going to agree with me.
3) He didn’t want to. It was attached to the Defense Spending bill. He couldn’t veto it without not paying the military. While I do enjoy the new law, I would agree that attaching anything in such a manner is sneaky and underhanded, and shouldn’t be allowed by either party.
4) Depends. Are they shouting, “Death to the American infidels, the Crusaders, the Great Satan of the West?” If so, then yes, I’d have a problem, but not with them being armed, rather with their desire to kill me. If they hate another race or ethnicity or religion, then, as we’ve already seen, they’re going to find ways of killing them (planes, bombs, guns, doesn’t matter). I’d be less afraid of them if they used guns, honestly, because then I’d have a fighting chance. Ask any soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine, and they’d tell you they’d take a stand-up firefight over IED’s any day. If 100 Black Muslims assembled to peacefully assert their gun rights, I’d JOIN them, because I believe that all people have a right to defend themselves from threats both immediate and… political. If their assembling to assert their supremacy over others, then no. Again, not because of the guns, but because of their desire to kill those who are different from them.
It’s convenient of you to resort to “racism.” You have no way to back it up, and I have no way to disprove you. You simply can’t accept the fact that people might not like the President because of his policies and ideology, which, quite honestly, is ignorant on your part. I look forward to hearing why I should like a president who, by my tally, I disagree with 95% of the time. And while we’re discussing racism, explain why the President still have 90% of the Black vote. You honestly expect me to believe nearly ALL black Americans agree with his policies? Even you should see that it is simply racism in the other direction… favoring someone for their race.
Oh, and that’s a lousy photoshop job. You honestly couldn’t FIND a real picture of a gun with that many attachments, so you made a picture to suit your needs? Doesn’t that kind of defeat the whole point of the picture?
Correction to #3 in my post…
I said the Nat’l Parks law was attached to the Defense Spending bill and that is incorrect. It was the Credit Card bill, as Scout said before me. I “misremembered.” 🙂
Grooms proves he is completely unaware of reality with this comment.
“2. You do realize, don’t you, that the current president has not made the slightest move, or shown the slightest inclination, to limit gun rights?”
I’ll attempt to partially rectify his oblivion, as nasty as that sounds.
“Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
Look it up while you can, as he has already sanitized it from his whitehouse.gov urban agenda page.
Don’t worry Mr. Grooms, I’m sure the Armed Black Muslims (Philadelphia Chapter) will be out in force come November 2012.
Well, well, another progressive (read fascist) speaks. Not surprising.
1. I was right out here, saying the same things about Bush II, of whom the Mighty Kenyan resembles, on steroids.
2. As several people have already pointed out, the Mighty Kenyan is fighting the Constitutional protection of the intrinsic human right to be armed with any weapon.
3. He signed a law that included an amendment that forbids a government agency to interfere with our intrinsic rights. Oooooooh, what a man.
4. I could care less, but I’d like to know, will all these wonderful black citizens be out on parole, or will they just have a virtual demonstration in their cell via their government provided computers?
Using a lot of different names today Frank.
Go outside ugly.
I did not have to even read this to get the points.
Blah blah blah…..gun nuts…blah blah blah…Bush sucks….Blah blah blah..Obama not against guns…blah blah blah…racist rednecks….
Just decided to phone it in today and turned it over to the PRO RED 2000 Artificial Liberal hitpeice generator right?
So are you fishing or hitting midtown?
Damn – did someone link that blog post to a lunatic asylum?
Yes, I think they did. Of course, you can’t count over half being Frank Griffin in disguise.
Grooms, answer the question about which Bush policies Obama has repealed.
Military commissions? Still in place.
Indefinite detentions? Still in place.
Gitmo? Still there.
Iraq and Afghan quagmires? Getting tens of billions in additional funding.
“Targeted killings”? Expanded.
Codify denial of FOIA requests? In the “financial reform” (hug-a-banker) bill.
If Obama were ANY different from Bush, Pfc. Bradley Manning would be feted at the White House as an American hero instead of rotting (and likely being tortured) in a hole in Kuwait.
Answer the question, John.
Your article is an example of the uneducated thinking that is a threat not only to the 2nd amendment, but a threat to the constitution in terms of reinterpretation.
Keep your interpretations of the constitution to yourself. I’ll stick to the document itself.
Your answers Mr. Grooms:
1. “accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” – Declaration of Independence. This goes back a lot further than Bush. “A majority of the people of the United States have lived ALL of their lives under emergency rule.” – Senate Report 93-549
2. This “president” as you call him didn’t have to limit these rights, the limitations on these rights were already there. Here’s a little list of ways in which people “ask permission” for this right: Concealed Handgun License/Permit (CHL/CHP), Concealed (Defensive/Deadly) Weapon Permit/License (CDWL/CWP/CWL), Concealed Carry Permit/License (CCP/CCL), License To Carry (Firearms) (LTC/LTCF), Carry of Concealed Deadly Weapon license (CCDW), Concealed Pistol License (CPL), etc. A right cannot be licensed. If you have to ask permission, it is no longer a right. That’s the whole point.
3. If gun rights are not being infringed upon, then why would we need a law allowing us to “parade” around with them? That doesn’t make much sense now does it?
4. The second Amendment is applicable to all state citizens, which most people today are not. However, if they were, the religion, nationality, color or other attributes of the person has nothing to do with it. Could they bear arms? Yes. Could they run for office? No. Look up the original state constitutions. Most states would only allow people to run for office who professed the name of Jesus Christ.
As for your James Protzman quote — perhaps you didn’t see some of the black speakers that were there and the comments they said about the event being a predominantly “white event.” On the contrary. Obama isn’t the president, and even if he was, his skin pigmentation has nothing to do with it.
You, Mr. Grooms should follow the sound and logical advice of Samuel Adams:
“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”