maineshark (maineshark) wrote in armedcitizen,
maineshark
maineshark
armedcitizen

Chris Matthews gets owned...

All up in arms about an armed civilian standing around outside at a rally...

Link to video

William did amazingly well, and fielded Matthews leading questions with aplomb.

There are plenty more videos from other networks, typically ranting and totally flummoxed that those of us who don't live in occupied territory are actually "allowed" to carry guns.

One thing I do think I might have said if I were in his shoes, and asked why I chose to carry at the rally, might be to simply say that I carry every day, and I would have to make a conscious effort not to carry at the rally.
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 47 comments

I love how hard Matthews tries to maneuver him into "look, this guy is batshit" territory. >.>
Leading? He was screaming! I turned it off as soon as he said "god damned gun".
Indeed- If Matthews would STFU for a second and let the person answer the question...
Or asked questions he actually cared about the answers.

Notice how he abandoned the "History of people carrying guns to presidential meetings" line as soon as the gentleman failed to say anything stupid, or get upset.

He spent the whole interview just trying to discredit the guy. Because he failed horribly he did a service to the open carry movement.
then you would like what this cop has to say.
Yeah, saw that when it first came out.

Any word on what happened to the Cop? I suspect the Chief up there wouldn't be pleased with his officers acting as such.
AFAIK, he's still working there. His chance for promotions are minimal, and the Chief was 'hoping' for a formal complaint, not just random people writing/calling in complaining

People freaked out because a citizen was expressing his specific desire to 'water the tree of liberty' while visibly armed at an event where an often-threatened president was speaking, when we have a history of assassinations and attempts against presidents, and when right wing violence is undeniably on the rise.

Any idiot knows that there's going to be trouble.. but that's what he wanted.
He was there to force a reaction and get on television.
Mission accomplished.

He's just lucky he stayed outside.

He had a few salient points, particularly about gun rights, but it was buried in a lot of bullshit, so I call this a fail.
All he did is make the rest of us look like assholes.

Deleted comment

I just take him on his own words: standard issue rightard talking points and paranoid conspiracy theories. "Ooh booga booga our rights are being eroded at an unprecedented rate! Keep your socialismz in Mass., we don't need it here (even though I just moved here from AZ)."


"Implying what?"

If he had tried to enter the event with his visible (or concealed) firearm and bloodthirsty meme-placard, he would have been stopped, searched, and detained by security services. As well he should have been had he done so. Since he did not, he is still free and talking to the press. William's sign and firearm at this event, had he tried to gain access to the 'tyrant', would have been more than sufficient justification. He doesn't seem stupid, had to know this.

"Really? Do you have some special knowledge that the rest of us are lacking?"

Apparently. Action + rant + result = some clue into motivation. This isn't rocket surgery.

"As opposed to all those other presidents, who never got threats?"

Poorly constructed straw man. Never claimed they didn't. Presidents have been shot and killed. Obama is the most widely threatened president since Lincoln. (Note Lincolns fate.) Thus, the extra precautions taken to secure all presidents.

And I hope I would do at least as well as Matthews, who, for all his emotional content, was more than a match for William. Calm != debate winner.
"I just take him on his own words: standard issue rightard talking points and paranoid conspiracy theories. "Ooh booga booga our rights are being eroded at an unprecedented rate! Keep your socialismz in Mass., we don't need it here (even though I just moved here from AZ)." "

Sure, yeah, no legislation is proposed that would interfere with anyone's rights, eh?

Where do you get your Kool-Aid?

I still want to see your substantiation for him being "right wing," or you should probably retract that as an unsupported (and insuperable) claim.

"If he had tried to enter the event with his visible (or concealed) firearm and bloodthirsty meme-placard, he would have been stopped, searched, and detained by security services."

But he didn't try to enter.

"He doesn't seem stupid, had to know this."

Exactly. Hence, he was not making any attempt to get inside. Hence there was no "luck" involved. I know that socialists can't argue without trying to make veiled implications about their opponents, but it would be very nice if they would at least try...

"Apparently. Action + rant + result = some clue into motivation. This isn't rocket surgery."

What action? Showing up at a protest? Lots of folks show up at protests. The fact that he had a gun? Again, do you have some special knowledge that the rest of us lack? I've seen him around, and I know I've seen him carrying most of the times I've seen him (and I would presume he was concealing any of the times I didn't note him carrying). Do you have some special knowledge that he was carrying to try and get on the news, as opposed to just carrying for the sake of being properly-armed like any sane, rational adult does?

"Poorly constructed straw man. Never claimed they didn't. Presidents have been shot and killed. Obama is the most widely threatened president since Lincoln. (Note Lincolns fate.) Thus, the extra precautions taken to secure all presidents."

Your unsupported claim is noted and rejected for lack of support.

"And I hope I would do at least as well as Matthews, who, for all his emotional content, was more than a match for William. Calm != debate winner."

Matthews didn't make a single point that wasn't shot down. Debates are won on content. Every claim Matthews made was demolished; every attempt at innuendo or implication was put down like a rabid dog.
"I just take him on his own words: standard issue rightard talking points and paranoid conspiracy theories. "Ooh booga booga our rights are being eroded at an unprecedented rate! Keep your socialismz in Mass., we don't need it here (even though I just moved here from AZ)." "

Sure, yeah, no legislation is proposed that would interfere with anyone's rights, eh?

Ridiculously oversimplified.

Stupid legislation is proposed all the time and sometimes is passed. And sometimes repealed. The question is whether there is an accelerating slippery slope that we are sliding down, and whether that has anything to do with a president who has been in office 6 months.

According to his worldview, and I presume yours, the slide began somewhere around the time we dropped the gold standard.

I would put it more in the vicinity of the Drug War, the AWB and continuing on through the Bush years with lovely programs like the Patriot Act, rendition, torture, and NSA domestic warrantless wiretaps.

Obama is far from faultless, having continued some of Bush's programs, but to blame the current situation on anyone other than the primary perpetrator (GOP, Bush, et al) is disingenuous at best.



I still want to see your substantiation for him being "right wing," or you should probably retract that as an unsupported (and insuperable) claim.

Is it some kind of mental disorder, that you feel the overwhelming need to create strawmen to bash?

What I actually said, if you'd bother to read it, is that his message was buried in right wing talking points.

Whether he self identifies as such or not, most of the memes he put out during his interview are classic right wing talking points.

And whether you accept it or not, within the bounds of the left/right spectrum ( inadequate as it is), most Libertarians fall squarely on the right, and more often than not echo most of the same memes as their GOP brethren.

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and carries a big fat sign that says "quack quack, gimme bread, tree of liberty", it's probably a duck.




"If he had tried to enter the event with his visible (or concealed) firearm and bloodthirsty meme-placard, he would have been stopped, searched, and detained by security services."

But he didn't try to enter.

Correct. This would be why he's having a press interview instead of a criminal interrogation.




"He doesn't seem stupid, had to know this."

Exactly. Hence, he was not making any attempt to get inside. Hence there was no "luck" involved. I know that socialists can't argue without trying to make veiled implications about their opponents, but it would be very nice if they would at least try...


First off, I'm a solid capitalist, and a small business owner/operator. I just happen to realize that government is still a useful tool for societies to use for certain tasks, not the root of all evil like you market fundamentalists love to cry from the rooftops at every opportunity.

And given the focus of this community, let it be known that my Bersa, baton, or blade are rarely out of reach, and I've got NV/UT CCW in progress. So I'm hardly some antigun troll here to shill for the Brady bunch. When they are out of reach, it's because I'm using common sense when going to a restricted zone like a presidential event, government building, or airport.

So you can stuff the 'DUR HUR SOCIALIZMZ" bullshit back up your ass where you found it.




"Apparently. Action + rant + result = some clue into motivation. This isn't rocket surgery."

What action? Showing up at a protest? Lots of folks show up at protests. The fact that he had a gun? Again, do you have some special knowledge that the rest of us lack? I've seen him around, and I know I've seen him carrying most of the times I've seen him (and I would presume he was concealing any of the times I didn't note him carrying). Do you have some special knowledge that he was carrying to try and get on the news, as opposed to just carrying for the sake of being properly-armed like any sane, rational adult does?


It never ceases to amaze me how far people will squirm to rationalize something.
I will explore why these come together below at the asterisks **.

"Stupid legislation is proposed all the time and sometimes is passed. And sometimes repealed. The question is whether there is an accelerating slippery slope that we are sliding down, and whether that has anything to do with a president who has been in office 6 months.

According to his worldview, and I presume yours, the slide began somewhere around the time we dropped the gold standard."


Um, no. It's been downhill since the Federalist traitors carried out their coup and illegally replaced the Articles of Confederation with their oppressive Constitution.

"Obama is far from faultless, having continued some of Bush's programs, but to blame the current situation on anyone other than the primary perpetrator (GOP, Bush, et al) is disingenuous at best."

Yes, blaming someone who wants to take a bad situation and make it overwhelmingly worse, for wanting to make it overwhelmingly worse, is just crazy!

"What I actually said, if you'd bother to read it, is that his message was buried in right wing talking points."

I expect he also breathes. And "right wing" folks probably do that, too! Claiming that he was using talking points, no just that he was doing something that "they" also do, is (falsely) claiming a link.

"And whether you accept it or not, within the bounds of the left/right spectrum ( inadequate as it is), most Libertarians fall squarely on the right, and more often than not echo most of the same memes as their GOP brethren."

The only way you can make libertarians "right wing" is to set up a spectrum from totalitarian communism (left) to free-market anarchy (right), which is fine, but it makes your claims about "right wing talking points" ludicrous, because the Demoblicans and the Republicrats are both left-wing extremist groups on that spectrum.

"Correct."

So why did you make comments about him trying to enter? If it's correct that he did no such thing, why even bring up the subject?

"This would be why he's having a press interview instead of a criminal interrogation."

Interesting notion. What crime would be charged with?

"First off, I'm a solid capitalist, and a small business owner/operator. I just happen to realize that government is still a useful tool for societies to use for certain tasks, not the root of all evil like you market fundamentalists love to cry from the rooftops at every opportunity."

LOL. No "solid capitalist" would use the term "market fundamentalist."

"And given the focus of this community, let it be known that my Bersa, baton, or blade are rarely out of reach, and I've got NV/UT CCW in progress. So I'm hardly some antigun troll here to shill for the Brady bunch. When they are out of reach, it's because I'm using common sense when going to a restricted zone like a presidential event, government building, or airport."

Why would a government building be restricted? Only buildings restricted in NH are courts. You seem to have the same notion that the talking heads do: because you live under massively-restrictive rules, you presume that's how it is, everywhere. Whereas, in reality, walking around with a gun on your hip in NH is commonplace.

"So you can stuff the 'DUR HUR SOCIALIZMZ" bullshit back up your ass where you found it."

You can't be a little bit socialist; that's like being a little bit pregnant. If you're not a capitalist, accepting the free market without restriction (ie, all is permissible, other than initiated force/fraud), you're a socialist.
""Obama is far from faultless, having continued some of Bush's programs, but to blame the current situation on anyone other than the primary perpetrator (GOP, Bush, et al) is disingenuous at best."

Yes, blaming someone who wants to take a bad situation and make it overwhelmingly worse, for wanting to make it overwhelmingly worse, is just crazy!

Support this ridiculous claim with facts.

---

"
Um, no. It's been downhill since the Federalist traitors carried out their coup and illegally replaced the Articles of Confederation with their oppressive Constitution."

looooooooooooooooooool
Okay, well, good luck with that! XD
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

---


"I expect he also breathes. And "right wing" folks probably do that, too! Claiming that he was using talking points, no just that he was doing something that "they" also do, is (falsely) claiming a link."

Riiight. Look, everything you and he have blown out so far that I've seen is standard issue Freeptard memes.
Prove me wrong. Express an independent thought.

---

LOL. No "solid capitalist" would use the term "market fundamentalist."

Blah blah no true scottsman. *yawn*

Only in your warped little market fundamentalist worldview is this even remotely true.
The world isn't rendered in black and white. Meet my friends greyscale and color.

Rejecting the fallacious notion that markets only function when they have no rules, a fallacy that breaks capitalism every time it is implemented to the degree that it has been, is the mark of a responsible capitalist.

----


"Why would a government building be restricted? Only buildings restricted in NH are courts. You seem to have the same notion that the talking heads do: because you live under massively-restrictive rules, you presume that's how it is, everywhere. Whereas, in reality, walking around with a gun on your hip in NH is commonplace."

Nice red herring.
The laws regarding such things in Nevada (excluding Vegas) are pretty much the same as in NH.
Courthouses are government buildings. Federal buildings are government buildings. Neither will allow you to carry inside.

---

""So you can stuff the 'DUR HUR SOCIALIZMZ" bullshit back up your ass where you found it."

You can't be a little bit socialist; that's like being a little bit pregnant. If you're not a capitalist, accepting the free market without restriction (ie, all is permissible, other than initiated force/fraud), you're a socialist."

A perfect example of your extremist black and white worldview.

And yet another reason that no one will ever implement it on a large scale; it may look pretty on your screen, but, just like communism, fails because doesn't take into account anything outside itself enough to function in reality.

Everyone has to follow the non-rule rules perfectly or the whole system breaks down.

Your utopia would last 30 seconds before the strong started exploiting the weak, and eventually some kind of blood drenched authoritarian dystopia would emerge.

"Poorly constructed straw man. Never claimed they didn't. Presidents have been shot and killed. Obama is the most widely threatened president since Lincoln. (Note Lincolns fate.) Thus, the extra precautions taken to secure all presidents."

Your unsupported claim is noted and rejected for lack of support.

The bit about Lincoln? You're right, I didn't support it. Purely anecdotal. I'm unable to find statistics for Lincoln, probably because there was no record keeping of such things and communication was far more difficult in his day.

But let's examine what facts we can get.

**
Obama gets about 30 death threats per day.
By comparison, Bush recieved about 8 per day, despite being the worst president in recent history, and hated by most of the world for his actions and policies. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5967942/Barack-Obama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

A significant increase.

Let's list the attempts on presidents lives:

Andrew Jackson
Theodore Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry S. Truman
John F. Kennedy
Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George H.W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush


And the successful assassinations:

Abraham Lincoln
James A. Garfield
William McKinley
John F. Kennedy

There have already been two plots to assassinate Obama detected and halted by law enforcement, one in Denver, one in Tennessee. Guess the political leanings of those involved.

There is a constant echo-chamber chorus of 'socialist nazi muslim terrorist antichrist brownshirt death panel birth certificate FEMA deathcamp blah blah blah" from large chunks of the mainstream and fringe media that is successfully whipping the more gullible portions of the populace into a hot steamy indignant froth.



This is contributing significantly to the recent rise in right wing violence.
A few supporting links, including the DHS report.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/10/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5078760.shtml
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=70912&catid=2
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_06/018561.php
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf


If I had a nickel for every time I've seen or heard some middle aged mall ninja spout off about how the second revolution is coming or how his state is going to secede from the union, praise god and O'Hannity!, I'd be rolling in Class III toys.


Further, right wing militias have grown significantly:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25922502-5005961,00.html

Put this all together and you get a heightened public sensitivity to things like an armed man in proximity to the president carrying a sign that says "IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYUmCj4yud4
Third graders know that quote.



So.

1. Presidents are juicy, often selected, targets. Supported above.

2. They must be protected, within reason.

3. You've admitted the importance of not crossing the line of imminent threat demarcation, not seeking entrance to the event.

4. Given his clearly intentional close proximity to that line of demarcation, and the current memetic shitstorm as supported above, the attention of security and press and populace is definitely warranted.




As for my claim that Kostrick did more damage than good to the cause of armed citizens:

- Most people's reaction that I've seen, rational or not, has been variations on "WHAAT? WHY IS HE STILL FREE?!11".

- This frequently leads into threads of 'why are guns still even legal' (that I then address when I see them. )

- The rest have been the choir singing back to Kostrick, at best.


Polarizing the debate surrounding the issue is a sure-fire recipe for failure.
Preaching to the choir does nothing.
Educating the masses, correcting misinformation, leading by example, this changes minds.
Kostrick was purely preaching to the choir.
The masses just think he's an extremist nutjob.
That is damage to the cause.


"The bit about Lincoln? You're right, I didn't support it. Purely anecdotal. I'm unable to find statistics for Lincoln, probably because there was no record keeping of such things and communication was far more difficult in his day."

So, in other words, like the rest of your ilk, you just make things up as you go along.

"As for my claim that Kostrick did more damage than good to the cause of armed citizens:

- Most people's reaction that I've seen, rational or not, has been variations on "WHAAT? WHY IS HE STILL FREE?!11"."


That's because they're irrational lunatics. If we cater to irrational lunatics, then the irrational lunatics have won.

"- This frequently leads into threads of 'why are guns still even legal' (that I then address when I see them. )"

Yeah, because the anti-gun loons need an excuse to rant on that...

"The masses just think he's an extremist nutjob."

Violence at home - liberal; Violence abroad - conservative; Violence against all - moderate; Violence against none - extremist!
Like the rest of my ilk? Who are my 'ilk'?

And what the fuck does that last line even mean?

Do you have any rebuttals to the long long long series of factually supported points I actually made?

Or are you just going to tapdance around them?

Your motto?

squidb0i

7 years ago

Re: Your motto?

maineshark

7 years ago

"People freaked out because a citizen was expressing his specific desire to 'water the tree of liberty' while visibly armed at an event where an often-threatened president was speaking, when we have a history of assassinations and attempts against presidents, and when right wing violence is undeniably on the rise."

As opposed to all those other presidents, who never got threats?

In any case, your attempt to paint William as "right wing" is fairly amusing, given what I know of his politics.

"Any idiot knows that there's going to be trouble.. but that's what he wanted.
He was there to force a reaction and get on television."


Really? Do you have some special knowledge that the rest of us are lacking?

"He's just lucky he stayed outside."

Implying what?

With your veiled implications and presumptions about intent, I expect you'd do about as well as Matthews in a debate. Maybe we should get William on here to give you the same treatment he gave Matthews, eh?
Well given that Obama held his meeting inside a school, and William was obeying the laws, I fail to see where he ever intended to "get inside".

I don't even think he expected for the President to give him the time of day. If I had bothered to head up there I would have brought my carry piece (concealed, because I don't feel like sucking curb at the hands of the Secret Service) and not even attempted to get into the meeting place because I think we ALL knew it would have been the orchestrated charade that it was.
http://community.livejournal.com/armedcitizen/117521.html?thread=1058065#t1058065

"Maybe we should get William on here to give you the same treatment he gave Matthews, eh?"

I look forward to it.
How many presidential assassins have stood around quietly with their weapon in plain sight? If you don't like Thomas Jefferson's views on government I suggest you find another Constitution and Bill of Rights to adhere to.

All you do is make the rest of us look like pansies who won't defend our own rights. Honestly, how can you profess to support gun rights and then defend and glorify those trying to villify you for exercising your right?
Do try to refrain from the strawmen. It gets so old.

I never claimed he INTENDED to. I claimed that he intentionally put forth cultural signals that stop just short of generating criminal reaction, with the intent of getting on television in order to preach to the choir.


See my forthcoming long detailed response to your other whiny reply for the rest.



You wanna talk about predictable? Everything you've said is "buried in right left wing talking points". Why don't you apply your "straw man" dismissal strategy to your own assumptions about Kostric? Know what else gets old? The arrogant, condescending, "intellectual", liberal attitude that renders you incapable of rational debate. You consider your opponent (victim) so far beneath you that actually listening to them would be a waste of your time. Hysterical screaming != debate winner. Hardball != debate.

"Polarizing the debate surrounding the issue is a sure-fire recipe for failure." Doing nothing but rant about "right wing violence" is pretty polarizing. Is it really that difficult to follow your own advice? Your immediate claim and constant reaffirmation of RIGHT WING EXTREMIST NUT JOB SURVIVALIST ASSASSIN, despite your own assertion that the left/right spectrum is "inadequate", does nothing but illustrate your inability to think outside of binary partisan politics. You polarized the debate your ranting and continue to polarize it.

"Given his clearly intentional close proximity to that line of demarcation" sure sounds like a claim of intent to me. The entire point of demonstrating is to gain attention, and he got your attention. You are obviously not in his "choir", so he wasn't just preaching to the choir.

Are you imagining another reply that I have posted here which you could respond to?
BLAH BLAH LIBRULZ R BAD AND U MUST BE 1 IF U DISAGREE WITH ME

*yawn*

Call back when you want to discuss what I actually said, and have something to contribute other than tired talking points and mindless kneejerkoff.

I look forward to that day.
"Are you imagining another reply that I have posted here which you could respond to?"

My bad there: I thought you were maineshark again, limitations of replying from email.

The response is the same though.
I address most of your non-points in these threads:

http://community.livejournal.com/armedcitizen/117521.html?thread=1059857#t1059857
http://community.livejournal.com/armedcitizen/117521.html?thread=1060113#t1060113