We see what's going on, right? A supposed "watchdog" press demanding to know why a citizen dares exercise his rights...? With the implication that We the People can't be trusted to be either moral or competent...?Today's Gun Rights Examiner column looks at some bigoted media elites, some irresponsible pot-stirring, and two new Guns Magazine articles.
And the further implication that the only ones who can be trusted work for the government...? [More]
Tell a friend? Tell two?
Have you read the latest from all the Gun Rights Examiners?
- Atlanta: Ed Stone
- Austin: Howard Nemerov
- Boston: Ron Bokleman
- Charlotte: Paul Valone
- Chicago: Don Gwinn
- Cleveland: Daniel White
- DC: Mike Stollenwerk
- Denver: Dan Bidstrup
- Los Angeles: John Longenecker
- Minneapolis: John Pierce
- National: David Codrea
- Seattle: Dave Workman
- St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann
- Wisconsin: Gene German
6 comments:
Chris Matthews' so called "coverage" is hot air.
It really exemplifies the low quality "news coverage" that is foisted on this country. However, apparently people consume it (just like reality TV and American Idol).
You don't? Then write MSNBC and tell them what you think about Chris Matthews, his "coverage" of the issues, their network, and what you plan on doing with your time instead of watching this show.
Wouldn't it be great to actually see fair reporting or perhaps an informative discussion (rather than intentionally raking people over the coals for doing something that is COMPLETELY LEGAL).
Here's the e-mail address for the producers: viewerservices@msnbc.com
I'm all for open carry, and once I learned the guy wasn't actually at the rally, I thought it was less of a big deal. But holding a sign that says "It's time to refresh the tree of liberty!" while protesting an individual politician is certainly something that could be construed as a threat. If, for instance, someone came to my house with a gun and a sign that says "It's time to refresh the tree of liberty!" and I had good reason to believe that he considered me to be a tyrant, I would certainly perceive it that way, and I would act accordingly.
Sentiments of the founders are actionable threats warranting state violence with no attendant aggressive actions on the part of the citizen and you're OK with that Dan? Really?
What's really the difference between that and a sign that says "Sic semper tyrannis!" when directed at an individual? Does anyone ever use that Jefferson quote except to justify gun rights and violent revolution?
When I see "It's time to refresh the tree of liberty!" at a protest of the president, I sincerely get the suggestion that it's time to kill the president, which is a step beyond saying that you HOPE the president dies or that someone kills him, which is probably protected by the 1st Amendment and rightly so.
If that sentiment is directed at me by a person carrying a gun and I have very reasonable suspicion that the person is calling me a tyrant and calling for my death, I can't imagine not perceiving that as a threat or at the least an incitement to violence and I'd seriously consider shooting him. I certainly think agents of the state have the same right of self defense as I do. My declining to call the cops for my own benefit would just be cutting out the middle man.
But this guy apparently wasn't in proximity to the president so I don't think it was an imminent threat to be worried about, but it stills seems like an incitement to violence against the president and I don't know what the Secret Service response is to something like that. The guy in the video seems to downplay what I believe to be the common understanding of the quote and the common understanding of his usage of it, which seems to me like he's just trying to play dumb.
The guy was a secret service plant. Did no one notice the earpiece he was wearing the entire time?
Thanks for reading my article, Chef.
Post a Comment