Armed Demonstraters at Healthcare Town Hall Meetings?

What’s up with these dudes showing up at Health-care Town Hall meetings with pistols strapped to their sides.  No one can tell me that they are merely practicing their 2nd Amendment rights.  No, what they are trying to do is intimidate people they disagree with, plus they are hoping to get arrested so that their paranoid delusions can be confirmed.

What upsets me more than these nut-jobs seeking their 15 minutes of fame, is that our “He said, She said” Mainstream Media gushingly giving these nuts a platform by having them on programs for follow-up comments.

These gun toting nuts are like the worst internet trolls – and thus we should, ignore them!  Well, unless they show up here, and then I will gleefully ban their dumb asses.

iggy donnelly


Filed under hate groups

20 responses to “Armed Demonstraters at Healthcare Town Hall Meetings?

  1. They are stupid! Absolutely the worst of society — fearful bullies who must strap a gun to themselves in order to face the world and their irrational fears. The most ugly Americans!

  2. wicked

    I wouldn’t put this kind of thing past one person I know over there. That’s his way of making his point.

  3. jammer5

    There can’t be any intelligence left in the brains of anyone carrying a gun to a Presidential, or any political, rally. It’s the complete antithesis of what this countries all about. Want a perfect example of “you just can’t fix stupid?” Anyone carrying a gun at a political rally.

  4. tosmarttobegop

    It is one hundred percent right they are looking for a incident where they are oppressed.
    It called self fulfilling prophecy, in this case it feeling oppressed they are doing something to cause them to be oppressed. Reasonable people on both sides of the issue are caused to cringe at the sight.

    Was it legal? Yes it was they did not violate the law, but just because something is legal it still should be done prudently. I am legally married to my wife, as such it is legal for my wife and I to have sex. But it is not prudent for us to have sex in a crowd at a town hall meeting!

    Though the reasonable on the side of 2nd Amendment rights would argue their right to own those firearms and the legality of them having those gun in plain sight in public. They also realize that these actions were not prudent and in fact endangers those very rights and legality. Again it causes reasonable people on both side of these issues to cringe at the sight and rethink the issues. This can lead to consideration of new and more restrictive laws and regulations.

    The firearms in my house should not be seen as a threat to you, they would never be unless you would chose to be a threat to my household. And also if I am wearing a firearm in public the only threat to you would be at your causing. The vast majority of gun owners are like me, prudent in my practices and reasonability’s.

    Those who staged this were not being prudent and reasonable, they acted out of paranoia and fear.
    In a sense they were being end of day-ers. I will follow up about how the paranoia works.

  5. wicked

    Wait a sec. Doesn’t it depend on whether the municipality or state in which the guns are being worn on display in public have a law about wearing them out in the open or concealed?

    • tosmarttobegop

      Yes but what most are not aware of. Most do not have a law against it.
      It is up to the locals to pass such a law.
      Failing that it is not illegal to wear a gun openly. Most have passed laws against hidden weapons but not openly worn.

  6. The absolutely most outrageous acts and statements are coming from the right wingers. They are showing their butts in every imaginable way — these that strap on guns just because it is legal, the birthers, the idiot misinformation being spread about health-care reform — all from people too stupid and ill informed to imagine they are safe among civilized people!

  7. wicked

    Did anyone sign up for today’s Q&A with Obama? I didn’t have a question, only a HUGE gripe, so I didn’t.

  8. I didn’t, but I just finished listening and thought he handled himself well. If given enough time to dispel the rumors and lies, at least those willing to listen could learn facts.

    • wicked

      I missed it?! Waking up with a headache means the day starts not so good. 😦

      • You’ve had your plate full for too long! Hope you found some relief from the headache.

        I watched on CNN — they usually repeat everything on the hour, don’t they? I know I can only take an hour or so of any cable news before it seems to ring of deja vu.

  9. tosmarttobegop

    By end of day-ers I meant that there is a foreseeable day coming where there will be a total gun control.
    either though the actions of legal legislation. Or as a result of the lost of the Democracy within the U.S.
    We did come closer to the later in the last eight years then most would suspect.

    The recent incidence has caused me to reflect on what was happening during the Clinton administration.
    I was not aware of it until it was pointed out yesterday that it is actually a common occurrence when ever a Democratic President is elected. Such thoughts and groups occurred during the Kennedy administration.

    A unreasoning fear and suspicion, I would not call it indoctrination as much as simple re-affirming of a unreasoned concern. It often works like this: I say that given the chance Fnord will steal your can of coffee.
    That sounds pretty unlikely huh? Now Fnord happens to come visit you and shortly after she leaves you discover the can of coffee in the cabinet is gone! You have trouble believing she would have stolen it, but you do not see any other reasonable explanation for it happening. The reality maybe this, your mother having a key to your house comes in while you were gone and reaching for something in the cabinet.
    She accidentally knocked off the can of coffee and it spilled on the floor. She got the broom and dustpan out and cleaned it up. She put the can and spilled coffee in the trash can, then noticed the trash needed taken out she took it out. Replaced the trash can and left, she did not want to tell you and planned on just replacing it later.

    But all you know is that I told you Fnord would steal your coffee and sure enough the coffee is now missing. It would not occur to you to look in the trash for it or even to notice that trash can is now empty.
    In many respect that is also how such concerns are re-enforced within the 2nd amendment supporters.
    There is no real plain thing to point to that can be unquestioning a movement to take your guns away.
    Just loosely associated things that point to it coming.

    Looking back to those days of being convinced that Bill Clinton was after my firearms. I can not point to any real effort of his to do so. There were the incidences of if I recall Barney Frank and Chuck Rangel.
    One wanting to limit the ownership of firearms to only those who would not hold more then one round.
    The other to place such a large tax on bullets that it would be impossible to buy more then a couple at a time.

    What did become a lynch pin was the Assault weapons ban, the majority of gun owners do not have a problem with the restrictions on full automatic weapons. But this was against semi-auto and the definition was so board that it included several models that we had. For instance I have a 22, bolt action rifle that has a ten shot clip. Under the definition that rifle is an assault weapon. The SKS is a semi-auto and it became the poster child for the assault weapons ban. It is a riffle that many use for deer hunting because it cost less and has great accuracy with a round that is effective.

    One problem is that unless the Government wanted to start out with open warfare. They actions would come more from a inch at a time. I little law here and a little restriction there till finally you wake up to the BATF standing beside your bed and demanding your 22 rifle. So paranoia becomes the rule of the day, you start not depending on the evening news for information on what the Government is doing to restrict or ban.
    It becomes trusted sources who have the same interests as you do. Often they speak from that point of paranoia. Till you finally buy a MAC90 ( this is basically a AK47 that has a solid stock so it is not covered under the AWB) at the first chance. You end up with several 100 round battle packs of 7.62X39 MM. rounds and at least a couple of 30 round banana clips in the closet.

    You find and tend to hang around with others who are equally insightful to the threat that the Government poses to your 2nd amendment rights. If you do not find yourself a member of a organized Militia, then you find yourself a member of a unaffiliated verbal agreement to if anyone within the agreement finds the BATF standing outside their house. With a simple call you and the other will show up and stand between these government agents and the caller. Willing to safeguard them with armed resistance.

    NOW, I am watchful of what concerns the 2nd amendment and the actions of President Obama and the the Democratic majority in Congress and the Senate. I am far more aware of their actions then back in the 90’s.
    And other then some isolated grumbling, I have just to see anything that is of a concern for me about gun control or being worth a fear of Obama. In fact he has already said he would NOT support any renewal of the Assault weapons ban. Or restrictions on gun rights that are serious threats to our rights.
    What is odd to me is I am more aware of Obama saying flat out he would not reinstall the AWB then those who are living in fear of it happening.

    • They only hear what they want to hear. They are paranoid. Honestly, I think it’s a form of mental illness to be so afraid that you don’t leave your house without a gun strapped to you, to be so afraid that someone / anyone (cue the black helicopters!) will come take your possessions!

      But here’s the deal — Americans are having the opportunity to see exactly who the town-hall meeting disruptors are. They look as stupid as can be to people who aren’t paranoid. They sure don’t attract new people to their cause!

    • wicked

      I’m going to disagree with you on the open carry, toosmart. I just checked out the gun laws in about half the states in the U.S., and most don’t have open carry, but do, as our rabid gun fans have told us, have concealed carry.

      Since I haven’t specifically checked out the states in which the guns were openly carried at town hall meetings and such, I won’t comment at this point on that.

  10. tosmarttobegop

    FYI unless it was changed Kansas does not have a state law against open carry.
    It has not been a point of order since almost every city has a law against it.
    It was only about 25 years ago that Wichita finally resented the city ordinance saying that before entering the intersection of Douglas and I think it was Hillside. If you were driving a automobile, you had to exit it and fire a shotgun into the air before entering the intersection. This to give warning to those driving a wagon or riding a horse coming the opposite direction. Seriously that was a Wichita city ordinance!

    • wicked

      Under the law, the Attorney General began granting permits to qualified applicants on January 1, 2007. Previously, Kansas had allowed only open carry of firearms, except where prohibited by local ordinance.

      tosmart, you said, “Yes but what most are not aware of. Most do not have a law against it.
      It is up to the locals to pass such a law.
      Failing that it is not illegal to wear a gun openly. Most have passed laws against hidden weapons but not openly worn.”

      I have to assume you were talking about ‘most states’ not kansas. Granted, I only made it through about half the states, and most of the concealed carry laws involve handguns, not long guns. But from the skimming I did, open carry is not the norm for ‘states.’ Laws can differ in cities.

      If someone wants to list all the places these nutjobs were carrying openly, I’ll be happy to research and admit if I’m wrong.

      Now about wacky laws…
      Did Kansas (or was it Wichita?) ever rescind the law that made ice cream on cherry pie illegal? 🙂

  11. tosmarttobegop

    LOL another law that got repealed about the same. It was Kansas law that anyone released from the state prison was to be given a horse, blanket, saddle, bridle, a new suit, a bag of beans and a Winchester rifle and bullets. A convict at Lancing found this old law and sued the State for all that since he was being released.
    So awaiting him outside the prison was a saddled horse and as he walked out in his new suit. They handed him the bag of bean and a check for the value of the rifle and bullet since he was a convicted Felon and could not have a firearm. They then repealed the law!


  12. tosmarttobegop

    Don’t know about ice cream on Cherry pie but it reminded me of the Pennsylvania law. It was illegal to carry a ice cream cone in your pocket on Sunday. Like many of the silly laws, it begs the question of was there a real problem of people carrying ice cream cone in their pocket any day of the week little alone on Sunday? Of course then there is the law in Tulsa OKla that banned whaling within the city limits? Who was whaling in Oklahoma in the first place? Could it be they were confusing them big Flathead as sperm whales.
    They can get fairly big!

    • whaling in Oklahoma… hmmm….

      There was a law on the books in Wichita not long ago (maybe still) that you needed to have a length (specific length!) of rope attached to your bumper if you entered the city limits. If your brakes failed, any nearby pedestrians could get your vehicle stopped by grabbing the rope.