by Gary Farber
Congressman stops short of calling for Obama assassination. Georgia Congressman Paul Broun's Tuesday night’s town hall meeting:
The first question of the night (confirmed by Broun’s office) was “when is someone going to shoot Obama?”
Broun’s response, Athens Banner-Herald (Georgia):
The thing is, I know there’s a lot of frustration with this president. We’re going to have an election next year. Hopefully, we’ll elect somebody that’s going to be a conservative, limited-government president that will take a smaller, who will sign a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare. He then segued into Republicans’ budget proposal.
Today: Loughner indictment expected by March 9, trial in Sept.:
Dylan Smith, TucsonSentinel.com
Prosecutors said they will indict Jared Lee Loughner on more federal charges by March 9, a court order said Thursday. U.S. District Judge Larry Burns said in the order that he expects a trial to begin before Sept. 20. Loughner, 22, is the alleged gunman in the Jan. 8 shooting that authorities call an assassination attempt on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
[...] Six were killed and 13 wounded in the attack on a constituent meet-and-greet at a Northwest Side grocery store. Giffords remains in a Houston rehab facility, recovering from her wounds.
Georgia Congressman Paul Broun had best not hold town meetings on Obsidian Wings. Posting Rules:
[...] Calls for the assassination of any person will be subject to immediate banning. Exceptions are made for legitimate military targets in time of war, being put to death after being convicted of a capital crime, etc. -- basically, the things that make a killing not 'assassination' to begin with. As before, this is not a prohibition on criticism, vituperation, and all those other good things; just a recognition that there's all the difference in the world between passionately disagreeing with someone and calling for that person's death.
We would ban someone from here for such a statement. But Republican Georgia Congressman Paul Broun lets it pass without a word and:
[...] Broun’s press secretary, Jessica Morris, confirmed that the question was indeed, who is going to shoot Obama? “Obviously, the question was inappropriate, so Congressman Broun moved on,” she said.
We wouldn't just move on, if we noticed that here.
But it's okay if you're merely a Republican Congressional Representative.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
In June, Greg Sargent wrote: Sharron Angle floated possibility of armed insurrection:
Here's another one that could be tough for Sharron Angle to explain away: In an interview in January, Angle appeared to float the possibility of armed insurrection if "this Congress keeps going the way it is."
I'm not kidding. In an interview she gave to a right-wing talk show host, Angle approvingly quoted Thomas Jefferson saying it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years -- and said that if Congress keeps it up, people may find themselves resorting to "Second Amendment remedies."
What's more, the talk show host she spoke to tells me he doesn't have any doubt that she was floating the possibility of armed insurrection as a valid response if Congress continues along its current course.
Asked by the host, Lars Larson of Portland, Oregon, where she stands on Second Amendment issues, Angle replied:
You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.
Larson says Angle was floating the possibility of armed insurrection if Congress keeps it up under Reid et al.
"If it continues to do the things it's doing, I think she's leaving open that possibility," Larson said. "And I think the founders believed that the public should be able to do that when the government becomes out of control. It just matters what you define as going too far."
... Rick Barber, another Tea Partyer (surprise!) who is in a runoff to face Alabama Democratic Rep. Bobby Bright. The ad features Barber conferring with--well, ranting at--George Washington, Samuel Adams, and Ben Franklin. He opens with talk of impeaching Obama and goes on about the IRS and the progressive tax code. Noting that the ghostly trio revolted over a tea tax, he says things have gotten much worse and that he won't "stand by while these evils are perpetrated." (At one point the former Marine points to a piece of parchment that he says he swore to defend with his life; presumably he's referring to the Constitution, but close examination reveals the document he's pointing to is the Declaration of Independence--oh well, close enough I suppose.)
The ad closes with his asking if the three forefathers are "with me?!?" The Washington characters responds: "Gather. Your. Armies."
Avedon Carol points out at The Sideshow:
Meanwhile, the GOP is still trying to kill women. People used to think I was a paranoid raving loony when I suggested this was how the anti-choicers rolled. Still waiting for those apologies.
That's New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion:
[...] The controversy over "forcible rape" may be over, but now there's a new Republican-sponsored abortion bill in the House that pro-choice folks say may be worse: this time around, the new language would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life.
Some current GOP women's policies:
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).
Sources:
1. "'Forcible Rape' Language Remains In Bill To Restrict Abortion Funding," The Huffington Post, February 9, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206084
"Extreme Abortion Coverage Ban Introduced," Center for American Progress, January 20, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205961
2. "Georgia State Lawmaker Seeks To Redefine Rape Victims As 'Accusers,'" The Huffington Post, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=206007
3. "South Dakota bill would legalize killing abortion doctors," Salon, February 15, 2011
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/02/15/south_dakota_abortion_killing_bill
4. "House GOP Proposes Cuts to Scores of Sacred Cows," National Journal, February 9, 2011
http://nationaljournal.com/house-gop-proposes-cuts-to-scores-of-sacred-cows-20110209
5. "New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion," Talking Points Memo, February 4, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=205974
6. "Republican Officials Cut Head Start Funding, Saying Women Should be Married and Home with Kids," Think Progress, February 16, 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/16/gop-women-kids/
7. "Bye Bye, Big Bird. Hello, E. Coli," The New Republic, Feburary 12, 2011
http://www.tnr.com/blog/83387/house-republican-spending-cuts-pell-education-usda-pbs
8. "House GOP spending cuts will devastate women, families and economy," The Hill, February 16, 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/144585-house-gop-spending-cuts-will-devastate-women-families-and-economy-
9. "House passes measure stripping Planned Parenthood funding," MSNBC, February 18,2011
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/18/6080756-house-passes-measure-stripping-planned-parenthood-funding
"GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds," Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2011
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/02/09/gop-spending-plan-x-ing-out-title-x-family-planning-funds/
10. Ibid.
"Birth Control for Horses, Not for Women," Blog for Choice, February 17, 2011
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2011/02/birth-control-f.html
Robert Kraig: Walker’s National Guard comments a thinly veiled threat against workers.
Who are these people?
They're the New Republican/Tea Party Volunteers Of America. The "Tea Party" name comes from a direct revolutionary action in the American Revolution.
Look what's happening out in the streets
Got a revolution Got to revolution
What can you do? Fight back. Don't mourn, organize.
Rally to Save the American Dream
On Saturday, February 26, at noon local time, we are organizing rallies in front of every statehouse and in every major city to stand in solidarity with the people of Wisconsin. We demand an end to the attacks on worker's rights and public services across the country. We demand investment, to create decent jobs for the millions of people who desperately want to work. And we demand that the rich and powerful pay their fair share.
We are all Wisconsin. We are all Americans.
This Saturday, we will stand together to Save the American Dream. Be sure to wear Wisconsin Badger colors—red and white—to show your solidarity. Sign up today to join in!
Be a real volunteer.
Update, February 26th, 2011, 10:45 a.m. PST:
Paul Broun Calls Obama Assassination Question 'Abhorrent'
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) said in a statement Friday that he was "stunned" when an elderly man asked what he called the "abhorrent question 'Who's going to shoot Obama?'"
"I deeply regret that this incident happened at all," Broun said in a statement. "Furthermore, I condemn all statements -- made in sincerity or jest -- that threaten or suggest the use of violence against the President of the United States or any other public official. Such rhetoric cannot and will not be tolerated." Broun also said his office "took action with the appropriate authorities."
Broun said that he "was stunned by the question and chose not to dignify it with a response; therefore, at that moment I moved on to the next person with a question."
But two witnesses told TPM that Broun chuckled along with the crowd when the elderly man asked the question. And a report said that Broun didn't immediately move on but rather responded to the question by stating that "there's a lot of frustration with this president."
Sounds like an agenda for the 21st Century! Huzzah!
Posted by: Ugh | February 25, 2011 at 04:50 PM
"when is someone going to shoot Obama?"
Yes, Dr. Broun laughed and moved on, But I believe this is because he actually knows that SOMEONE is going shoot the President, but he's just not saying who or when.
Certain events must transpire before the precise time and place are decided upon and Broun knows the President's future schedule and whereabouts are ambiguous enough to preclude plans set in concrete.
After all, in the 1960s, crackers and Texans asked all of the time when, how, and where John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King were going to be murdered, but they kept the answers close to their cute Confederate vests.
Mum's the word, they would wink. All in good time.
Now, I have a question about the difference between threatening assassination (I congratulate OBWI for its high standards in the posting rules, but a guy can wonder what the f*ck is wrong with Republican elected officials, candidates and their fans at their gatherings that their rules are actually LESS stringent than a blog) and doing something akin to assassination, when need be, in self-defense, which as various folks would stipulate is the right that the Second Amendment guarantees.
Note: I don't suggest individual violence. It's so squeaky frommish, as practiced by liberals, disorganized and ineffectual, and I might have voted for Gerald Ford had he run. No, when it comes time to do the worst, I think the violence should be highly organized, swift, overwhelming, final, and carried out by a very large and disciplined group, say a minimum of half a million pissed-off, but disciplined and well-trained silhouettes of liberal, unemployed people with lots of time on their uninsured but heavily-armed hands.
But, let's say, Sharron Angle threatens to take out Harry Reid using those "Second Amendment remedies" to great and alarming shouts of agreement from the crowd (now, I realize the small-dicked, murderous women of the right-wing freedom-loving contingent tend to make these threats from highly fortified radio and TV studios, with only some like-minded sh*thead host in attendance who, somehow, is permitted near a microphone to peddle murder over the Serbian Ivory Coast American airwaves -- don't worry, conservative victims, the Fairness Doctrine I have in mind won't be government-sponsered) ..... and Harry Reid happens to be standing there and spies a suspicious lumpy shape under Angle's ample bustle as she threatens, takes at her word, and decides his life is in mortal danger and he (NRA member, is he not, the dope) pulls out a gun and wings the little f#ck and maybe gets an extra round off which accidentally hits Angle's former Federal Employee husband who steals subsidized health care insurance for the two of them from me, the thieves.
Would Reid be within his rights, even if outside the OBWI posting rules?
Posted by: Countme--In | February 25, 2011 at 07:18 PM
Say you have a fetus, and its mother fully intends to carry the baby to term.
Say the fetus is assassinated by corporate statist rules like these (see also the link to the water pollution rules suspended by the recently installed revolutionary volunteers of Pennsylvania):
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/02/25/the-air-up-there-2/
Say you have a law in Pennsylvania that fetuses under threat of death or other harm may be defended with deadly force by just about any old trigger-happy third party mofo who appoints himself to that role.
Posted by: Countme--In | February 25, 2011 at 08:20 PM
"but a guy can wonder what the f*ck is wrong with Republican elected officials, candidates and their fans at their gatherings that their rules are actually LESS stringent than a blog"
I mentioned earlier that precondition for a war is one side to think of other as less human, unamerican, dangerous for their life or danger to the country they live in. Fox news and some GOP candidates are working feverishly on that. They are in positive feedback loop with their peers and environment. They are true believers, and just as Democrat side will do a lot of things to protect the country we live in thats how republican side feels like. Add to that developed sense within GOP of other side as being less human and it becomes easy to kill in order to protect the country.
Posted by: crithical tinkerer | February 25, 2011 at 08:30 PM
i worry about the country my son-in-law is defending, and that my grandkids will inherit. I thought we had come such a long way since Grace sang that song.
Posted by: geographylady | February 25, 2011 at 08:41 PM
From S Dakota bill HB1171
" 22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being"
As i can understand it, this bill allows to kill not only abortion providers, but also anyone who is helping the woman to get an abortion. Like a friend that gave a ride to clinic, money for a ticket or a boyfriend or husband if advocated for abortion.
Considering how GOP is arguing that money is fungible when it comes to federal funds for abortions, you can argue that anyone who gave any money to woman thats about to have an abortion is helping her to have an abortion. Like an employer or parents helping out with other bills.
Posted by: crithical tinkerer | February 25, 2011 at 08:45 PM
HOUSE JUDICIARY ENGROSSED NO. HB 1171.
Full bill history.
HTH. HAND.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 25, 2011 at 09:38 PM
Via Digby on how it works:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/planned-parenthood-funding_n_827886.html
Posted by: Countme--In | February 25, 2011 at 10:54 PM
Also, via Digby, the plan for the unions:
http://thinkprogress.org/?p=146555
I can't remember, is this behavior good faith or bad faith? Did we ever decide that?
In a way, Hitler practiced good faith in Mein Kampf. Tell them what you're going to do to them, do it, and then tell them what you just did to them.
Posted by: Countme--In | February 25, 2011 at 11:01 PM
Behind The Assault On Planned Parenthood.
Koch Front Group Americans For Prosperity: ‘Take The Unions Out At The Knees’.
I'm really trying hard to get the widget added to allow everyone to click to add links, bold, underline, italicize, etc., but we have... it'll take some more time.
Meanwhile, once again:
This is a "dead link." It's the URL most folks know how to cut and paste. It's not clickble: http://werbach.com/barebones/barebones.html
This is the active link version:
Barebones Guide To HTML and Tags.
How To Link:
http://werbach.com/barebones/barebones.html#links
Link tags.
TEXT
< >
<A HREF="URL">TEXT</a>
< A HREF="URL" > TEXT < /A >
OR:
left angle bracket A HREF ="URL"right angle bracket
left angle bracket TEXT /A right angle bracket
[A HREF="URL"]TEXT[/A]
Substitute pointy bracket for rectangular bracket
If you could possibly save me a little time, Countme--In, I can assure you that I know for a fact that very few people cut and paste a link compared to clicking on one, and that relatively few even click one -- usually fewer than 10% of readers, as a vague general rule -- but the number of cut and pasters is less than 1%, so you'd get a lot more readers if you did this yourself, meanwhile, and I'd really appreciate it.
But if it's a pain for you, naturally dead links are vastly better than no links, and you're an invaluable source of linkage, so many many many many many thanks to you for coming up with so many fine and spot-on links, formatting be damned.
It's ObWi own fault, so to speak, that we're stuck with the same template since Moe Lane left for InsaneLand, even though I've been, sigh, trying to get this changed since ~2005.
But I hope we'll finally get the widget added soon. That's about all I can say for now.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 26, 2011 at 12:30 AM
Barber Ad: This thing is just cheesy. But calling for armed insurrection? Give me a break. I actually think the ad has a point at least from an educational perspective since Robert Schlesinger needs a lesson on the Constitution. Barber is pointing at a replica of the Constitution. If it starts out "We the People . . ." it's certainly not the Declaration of Independence. It's one of those replicas that puts the whole thing on one page including the signatures. So, yes, it somewhat resembles the Declaration in that it has signatures on the same page, but the Preamble should have rung a bell. Schlesinger needs to retake 10th grade American Government and should be forced to memorize the Preamble.
Gary:
Why the juxtaposition of Loughner and Republicans? Are you really trying to tie him to Republicans? Why?
And why not include the entire Angle quote? Not that I want to be in the position of defending her words, but that quote was IMHO taken gleefully out of context by the left. She retracted it anyway and clarified that she meant "take Reid out of office." It's a bit clearer in context:
Well, I qualified for my CCW with a Dirty Harry cannon so, so maybe that tells you a little bit, but you know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, and in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every twenty years. I hope that’s not where we’re going, but you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, ‘my goodness what can we do to turn this country around’ and I’ll tell ya, the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out — and it’s not just Nevadans that need to get in this game, we need to all over the nation begin to support those candidates that we believe in, like I said, that have walked the walk, that know what’s really at stake here.
If you really believe she meant "take Harry Reid out," as in "terminate his life," you must think she is saying "I hope that’s not where we’re going, but the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." That doesn't make sense. The rest of her comments make it clear she was talking about winning at the ballot box, a part of the transcript left out by Mr. Sargent. Wonder why?
Her choice of words was beyond poor. But it doesn't take an advanced understanding of the English language to see what she meant.
Please note: I don't think we are anywhere near the need to utilize our Second Amendment rights. But let's get this in context.
Broun, on the other hand, should have spoke up and condemned the statement. Obviously. Broun is a real piece of work. He did issue a (too late) statement.
Posted by: bc | February 26, 2011 at 01:48 AM
Loughner was a nut, not a person with any sane or coherent political beliefs of
any sort, AFAIK, but I'm not associating him with Republicans or any political grouping, period.
I'm associating Republican Georgia Congressman Paul Broun with the fact that he was asked “when is someone going to shoot Obama?” and didn't say anything back.
I think "that would be a bad idea," isn't too much to ask, and I think the fact that Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head when she was meeting publicly with constituents isn't irrelevant to bring up as context.
YMMV.
In case this isn't clear, let me be clear as I can:
No.Posted by: Gary Farber | February 26, 2011 at 03:02 AM
One or two other states are also discussing bills de facto legalizing the murder of abortion providers and accomplices.
---
I believe that the 'take out' is indeed intended to convey a message of 'to kill' but with credible (hah!) deniability. On other occasions of GOP/TP election campaign events people were less cautious: 'if ballots don't work, bullets will'.
Personally I do not think that Angle actually wants Reid murdered but that her irresponsible rhetoric is purely tactical betting on nobody actually doing it*. The intent is to rally the radicals on her side and to intimidate the opposition.
*to use the old chess rule: the threat is stronger than its execution.
Posted by: Hartmut | February 26, 2011 at 04:35 AM
I don't know if anyone here can remember far back enough to the early SNL, but conservatives today remind me of the John Belushi character who would start off reasonably and then veer into a rant, getting angrier and angrier until his head exploded. Just something to look forward tod.
Posted by: debbie | February 26, 2011 at 08:22 AM
Argh. Look forward TO.
Posted by: debbie | February 26, 2011 at 08:23 AM
Sorry, Gary, I'm incorrigible.
I'll do better. Tomorrow.
In the meantime, bc, cut and paste this:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/flashback-giffords-opponent-had-m16-shooting-event-help-remove-gabrielle-giffords-from-office.php
It's true, crazy impressionable person Loughner didn't use an M-16. But he might have gotten to Giffords before the idiots with the M-16s could.
bc, I kid, but one of my favorite movies is about you. It's called "The Man Who Parsed The Words Of Liberty Valence".
Have a good weekend, all.
Posted by: Countme--In | February 26, 2011 at 09:40 AM
I'll continue the fun.
Maybe Angle wanted to take Harry out for a date. Maybe she was afraid her husband would find out about it and she was providing herself some plausible deniability:
"Oh, my little reptile, I just meant I was going to shoot Harry. You know, kill him. Not date him. (batting imaginary Harry Reid kisses away from her face) There's nothing more than that going on. Land sakes!
Also, let me speculate further about what was going through jacka8s Broun's mind when the question was asked.
I think Broun's a little afraid of his "constituents". Behind the bloviation, I can sense that he's got a tiger by the tail of his own creation, the cowardly little vermin.
He doesn't quite have the courage of his conniptions, but it's occurred to him that a good many of his constituents might.
If he had chastised the questioner, two things might have happened --- there might have been a chorus of boos from the questioner's fellow Medicare-supported sh*thead filth in the audience AND, tut-tutting over the suggestion of shooting Obama in the head might have caused Broun to lose a vote or two or even cause a Tea Party challenge during his next primary.
I'm pretty sure the biggest regret Confederate politicians had after Lincoln was murdered was that John Wilkes Booth's and his confederates' votes would have to be replaced.
Not that it was that difficult. As8holes in this country have a deep bench.
Posted by: Countme--In | February 26, 2011 at 10:07 AM
Her choice of words was beyond poor.
And her choice of words is far from atypical.
I'd really like conservatives / tea partiers / what have you to drop the violent, "2nd Amendment remedy", we're going to start shooting if we don't get our way electorally language, and I'd like them to drop it, like, yesterday. If not the day before.
Seriously, we've had more than enough of it. And while Loughner is likely not an example, there are many other examples of folks who take that crap to heart and end up shooting people.
Enough. Just knock it the hell off.
If folks on the left used that kind of language, folks on the right would (a) sh*t their pants and then (b) call for immediate legal action.
If you find that unlikely, I offer Rep. Peter King's response to Loughner's attempted assassination of Rep. Gifford.
Hopefully Rep. King will henceforth be known as Peter "Brave Sir Robin" King.
Enough of the gun talk. Enough of the gun talk, enough of the justifications for the gun talk, enough of the careful quoting of context to try to explain why gun talk isn't really gun talk.
You want to dress up in tri-corner hats, wave the Gadsden flag around, make your rhetorical points, and generally have a good time, live it up. Leave the f**king guns, and the talk about the f**king guns, at home.
If you need a good reason why, start with "some folks shoot back".
We don't want to go there, and there's no need to go there.
Enough is enough. Lose the gun talk.
Posted by: russell | February 26, 2011 at 10:34 AM
NOt just the gun talk. The marginalizing, demonizing dehiumanizing talk. And lose the preteding that that sort of rhetoric isn't a stable on the right. I'm tired of the enabling. Republican politicians would't use eliminnationist rhetoric if Repubican voers weren't enablers for it.
Posted by: wonkie | February 26, 2011 at 10:43 AM
I've been meaning to introduce an entrepreneurial idea I have for a franchised chain of gun shooting ranges across this great country of ours.
It's only uncertainty over taxes, Obamacare, etc, that has prevented me from devoting capital to this idea, plus I would have to employ people, and that just doesn't seem right.
But y'all tell me what you think.
I admit upfront that the germ of the idea came from the case last year of a Florida Republican who held a fundraiser at the local shooting range in which he and his lovely benefactors shot the crap out his opponent's silhouette, a female I believe, not Giffords, but who's keeping track.
One female silhouette looks like any other to a bunch of guys intent on defunding Planned Parenthood.
I concluded there was a vast unserved market in this business -- the tens of millions of liberals in this country who are recently feeling the need for a little target practice because of unease, inchoate anger, paranoia, maybe they've got their own tax problems with Republican-led gummint .... whatever.
(Splays hands for the presentation)
Liberal members-only shooting ranges!
That's right, liberals and THEIR candidates with every caliber of weapon known to Wayne LaPierre, lined up (safety goggles and ear protection, natch) just blowing the sh*t out of a virtually unlimited selection of individually tailored silhouettes of Republican, conservative politicians and media personalities.
But, there are premium, money-making twists to this enterprise:
Custom shooting ranges!
You could have the FOX Range with the silhouettes of FOX personalities sitting at lifelike renditions of the FOX news sets.
Or, the blogger range. Silhouettes of your favorite conservative bloggers, swinging and twisting in the wind from side to side, to make it challenging.
I'm not done yet.
The Machete Room!
That's right! You let a small number of machete-armed liberals into a small room, with a time limit, to just hack the living crap out of silhouette dummies of our favorite Republican personalities!
You could have an outdoor tactical nuclear weapon and golf driving range. A silhouette of John Boehner slicing a ball into the woods and bending over to pick up his tee, and KABLAM! .... a tactical nuclear weapon heads across the fairway and goes right up his pocket veto.
Then, of course, a lounge, a bar, maybe a locker and shower room.
I don't know.
The fact that Republicans came up with the idea kind of sours me on the entire thing.
Posted by: Countme--In | February 26, 2011 at 10:45 AM
"Liberal members-only shooting ranges!"
As a former Republican enabling voter I want to denounce this idea in the strongest terms possible!
Posted by: CCDG | February 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM
The mama-grizzly gets ridden hard!
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/fa-1.html
Posted by: Countme--In | February 26, 2011 at 11:31 AM
One more, and then I'm done because the sun's out today.
The Mark Levin Range!
You sit a silhouette of Mark Levin in the middle of a room and you pipe in the audio from one of his chat fests.
You allow a group of liberals, who haven't eaten for a few days and have been listening to Levin's show at high-volume through headphones for the same and are hungrier and moodier than a cage full of starving, muzzled wolverines who have been poked repeatedly with sticks, say 20 at a time, into the room with high-caliber weapons.
They stand in a circle around Levin's silhouette and open fire, shredding Levin's silhouette AND taking each other out.
Just like a bunch of Democrats.
Hoo-boy!
Posted by: Countme--In | February 26, 2011 at 11:53 AM
"They stand in a circle around Levin's silhouette and open fire, shredding Levin's silhouette AND taking each other out."
I, uh, well, uh, think, like, uh, well, uh, I object to this too. (Don't I?)
Posted by: CCDG | February 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM
"Don't I?"
Maybe that last was a little too bipartisan.
Dobe, let's you and me and Rick and Dave head down to the malt shop.
Posted by: Countme--In | February 26, 2011 at 12:28 PM
Ok Maynard, cooool.
Posted by: CCDG | February 26, 2011 at 12:30 PM
Could you let have a fiver?
By the way, Ozzie, Rick's and Dave's Dad, is bringing the girls down to the shop too.
He was a very attentive Dad.
Posted by: Countme--In | February 26, 2011 at 12:42 PM
Sure, but are Wally, Eddie and Lumpy, bringing the twerp?
Posted by: CCDG | February 26, 2011 at 12:46 PM
And besides its no garden party.
Posted by: CCDG | February 26, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Deplorable as most of your examples are, Gary, I think that in fairness you should note when discussing the first example that Congressman Broun has since issued a statement strongly deploring anyone suggesting the assassination of any President of the United States. And not at all an equivocal one either.
Indeed, I think it is not impossible that he was totally blind-sided by the question, and his reported laugh was one of embarassment that anyone would say such a thing. Not saying that that is necessarily the case. Just that it is not totally beyond the realm of possibility.
Posted by: wj | February 26, 2011 at 12:55 PM
Sorry bc. Yes this is garbled, Palinesque word salad. But let's try the best we can to understand it.
What is a "Second Amendment remedy," do you think? And what is she suggesting would justify such a remedy? This all comes before the coment about Reid.
It sounds like she is saying that a more liberal Congress, passing more liberal legislation, would justify armed rebellion. Is that how you read it?
And then she goes on to talk about "taking Harry reid out." That's a little ambiguous, I grant you, but the "kill" interpretation is hardly totally crazy.
And suppose she didn't mean it that way. Isn't it possible, likely even, that some member of her audience would hear it that way, as a call to assssinate Reid?
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | February 26, 2011 at 01:36 PM
wj: Done.
I can't read everything everywhere. Thanks for pointing it out. If you have a more up to date URL, feel free to suggest; same for everyone. And going to [email protected] is probably fastest, but, again, since I get over 1000 emails a day, and, well, that's good, only 45 ObWi emails I just dealt with, but haven't checked Twitter messages yet, mailing lists, TIO, other threads, Facebook, my gmail account, I'm a bit busy. Now to go take a shower. :-)
Thanks!
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 26, 2011 at 01:51 PM
wj, it took Broun three days to come out with that strong statement deploring that suggestion.
Three days.
I particularly liked the part about how such comments 'will not be tolerated.'
Or how he did not want to dignify the question with a response, except that he did respond to the question.
Posted by: RogueDem | February 26, 2011 at 02:44 PM
"I think it is not impossible that he was totally blind-sided by the question, and his reported laugh was one of embarassment that anyone would say such a thing. Not saying that that is necessarily the case. Just that it is not totally beyond the realm of possibility"
I don't know why he's be blindsided--people sayt stupid mean nasty stuff at Repuiblican town halls all the time.
However even assuming that he was blindsided that doesn't explain why he first impulsive response wasn't "Let's not talk like that " "Or I know that know one wants to shoot the PResdient."
Oh no. Not at all. That is not waht his instinctive response was. He response was to legitimize the assumption that Obama should be shot by showing simpathy for the "frustration" of Repulcian rank and file that would be bring about such a shooting.
And according tot he Secret Service Obama is the atraget of far more assasination threats than is the norm..
Posted by: wonkie | February 26, 2011 at 04:28 PM
Barack Obama assassination threats.
Threatening the President of the United States:
Frequency: There's different reporting on this. The last cite goes to an article and statement from December 3, 2009, a date that's almost 14 months ago.Mark Sullivan, the Director of the United States Secret Service, I assume is a professional non-partisan, and that his statements are made as such.
If anyone cares, I'll note that Director Sullivan was promoted into the politically appointed ("Plum Book") ranks of:
Which is to say, the tail end of the Clinton Administration.Eventually he rose further until:
So he hung out with Dick Cheney a great deal, so to speak. Very personally. And had to have been chosen for that position because Vice-President Cheney found him congenial and easy to work with.If one is prone to conspiracy theorizing, one might make something of that, but then:
He only lasted a year, and for whatever reason, was kicked over to be in charge of personnel and training.Make of that what you will. My knowledge suggests that this is perhaps a sideways move, and not indicative of favor or promotion, but I certainly don't claim to have inside sources in the Secret Service, and there could be endless numbers of reasons for Mr. Sullivan to have been moved/decided to make that move. I wouldn't speculate further, myself, save that I'll note that if V.P. Cheney wanted him in charge, he'd have stayed, unless, of course, Mr. Sullivan himself didn't want to stay, for whatever reason.
But then!
So he then rose rapidly under President George W. Bush, and V. P. Cheney, and was made Director by them.So obviously he was favored by them, and when you're a career guy, who has risen to those previous positions, you either rise, stagnate and wait for retirement, or quit, so he rose.
Make anything of that you wish; I don't think speculation, absent very specific knowledge, is helpful, but what the hell, some grist for you. :-)
More officially, the United States Secret Service FY 2009 Annual Report is still the most recent posted information. FY 2010 isn't out yet. So anyone who wants to check official figures for the past year, will have to wait.
Has the number of threats against Obama risen, fallen, stayed the same, in the past year?
I don't know. I only have so much time for this. :-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 26, 2011 at 05:07 PM
Picked up along the hunt of that, though, some trivially interesting digressive information. I think this good:
Wise for several reasons which should be obvious.2010 information, none relevant to the question of Presidential threats. There's some minor stuff I found digressively mildly interesting, but won't bother telling you about, because all their pages are filled with that sort of thing for me. :-)
But actually, everyone might benefit from reading BEWARE OF SKIMMING FRAUD on credit card theft:
That last is obvious, but the rest is why people who worry about entering credit card info into their computer via https are... not judging statistics of security correctly.You are endlessly more likely to be subject to credit card fraud, and ID theft, by ever handing your card over to any other human being, and letting them put it through a machine you haven't personally taken apart and had checked, or letting your card out of your sight for over five seconds, then you are by putting your card number into your browser, save that, again, few people, relatively speaking, are competent to notice whether their computer has been trojaned, in which case, again, all your data has possibly been stolen, everything is being keylogged, you don't know, because you don't know.
In the end, your real protection is the fact that your credit card/debit card company/bank/PayPal/whatever, usually has good protection, and will just hand you your money back either instantly, or the next day, or next week.
Otherwise: in order:
1) don't have a credit card (I use this myself! Though not entirely voluntarily; it would be useful if I wanted to rent a formal apartment from any formal rental agency owner, if I could afford one, sigh);
2) don't have a debit card. I do;
3) Only use cash, and then worry about it being stolen, burned up, whatever. Myself, I'd say keep some on hand, but not enough to worry about losing, and now I'm getting too far into the weeds, and stopping. :-)
If you want to know more about electronic crimes, go here.
As I said, there's endless interesting stuff on the Secret Service pages, let alone the rest of Homeland Security, but I gotta go, so have a FAQ.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 26, 2011 at 05:20 PM
But because I'm obsessive, I can't go! :-)
This is somewhat relevant to the question of presidential threats, the NATIONAL THREAT ASSESSMENT CENTER, and some links there. It's not direclty relevant, so I'm not elaborating, but I find it interesting, big surprise, though I already know a moderate amount about NTAC, but there's some detail there I didn't, and now do. :-)
I'll blockquote this, in particular, without the links, and leave it there for anyone:
There are links for all those, but I'm not spending time embedding them.Posted by: Gary Farber | February 26, 2011 at 05:26 PM
Gary,
don't have a credit card
I don't think security is a good reason not to have a credit card. Twice in my life I've had one disappear for some reason and wound up with tons of charges. All were removed with no trouble, and I didn't evenhave to pay the $50 I thgink they can hold me to.
Similarly, a friend was once victimized by a store clerk who copied down her Amex number and used it. She was not required to pay the charges, or the $50, either.
I will say I admire the speed with which card thieves can spend money.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | February 26, 2011 at 05:38 PM
However even assuming that he was blindsided that doesn't explain why he first impulsive response wasn't "Let's not talk like that"
Yes, it seems like that would have been the appropriate response.
Posted by: russell | February 26, 2011 at 08:08 PM
"Yes, it seems like that would have been the appropriate response"
I look at this much like some of the response sthat Walker gave to the fake Koch. Every good politiciaan is trained to NOT automatically respond. They are trained to move on to an answer that they know is ok to say. They are trained to say something that is as "gee whiz" as possible and move along as fast as possible.
I am sure it shouldn't have taken three days to issue an appropriate statement, but what he did at the moment is perfect training.
Posted by: CCDG | February 26, 2011 at 08:14 PM
I am sure it shouldn't have taken three days to issue an appropriate statement, but what he did at the moment is perfect training.
The guy was asking when the President of the United States was going to be assassinated.
"That's really not appropriate" is not an OK thing to say? Every good politician's professional training is going to argue against calling out requests to assassinate sitting Presidents?
I'm having a "seriously, WTF" moment right about now.
Posted by: russell | February 26, 2011 at 08:23 PM
russel, it is an ok thing to say. But, the on the spot thought process could be:
Do I laugh and say it? Like I know he was exaggerating?
Do I get serious and say it? Like I'm lecturing him, like I thought he was at least serious?
Do I say it casually risking being taken as if I don't really think it would be that bad?
Each of thtose ehave risks of insulting someone in the room, not just the a**h asking the question.
Once asked in an open forum it is a difficult spot and a politicians training gets him to an answer about replacing him at the polls as quick as possible.
Sorry he didn't meet your standard, you stand in front of a wide range of people answering random questions for hours at a time and see if you don't ever miss on your own standard. I don't want to have to meet it. You make it sound so simple.
Posted by: CCDG | February 26, 2011 at 08:35 PM
You make it sound so simple.
How complicated is it?
"When is someone going to shoot some niggers?"
"When is someone going to shoot some cops?"
"When is someone going to blow up some airplanes?"
"When is someone going to burn the state house down?"
What's the proper response?
How different is "When is someone going to shoot the President?"
Posted by: russell | February 26, 2011 at 08:49 PM
CCDG,
No. It's not hard. It's as simple as Russell suggests, maybe simpler. All you have to do is have a "violence bad, peaceful political action good" reflex. That some Republicans lack this is troublesome.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | February 26, 2011 at 09:18 PM
Freaky stuff. What are we coming to?
Posted by: Family Quotes | February 26, 2011 at 09:18 PM
Out here during the governor's race the Republican candidate had a similar question from a Republican voter only with the Democratic Governor as the target of assasination. Rossi made a joke about it, too.
Sometimes when adults are talking in front of children the adults will say something more bluntly than they should, only to be embarrassed later when the children repeat the adults' statements in an even cruder form.
That's what's happening at Republican candidate forums.
Not that Republican politicians ever discuss issuues in a grown up way--my point is that Republican politicians speak in a irresponsible way that comes just short of dirtectly advocating murder and are then embarrassed when one of their voters parrots their own rhhetoric back at them even more crudely.
But Republican politicians wouldn't be using irrespoonsible rhetoric and wouldn't be getting those sorts of questions if it weren't for all the people so willing to enable them by making excuses or vote for them in spite of the irresponsible rhetoric.
Posted by: wonkie | February 26, 2011 at 09:53 PM
"No. It's not hard. It's as simple as Russell suggests, maybe simpler. All you have to do is have a "violence bad, peaceful political action good" reflex. That some Republicans lack this is troublesome."
Funny, because:
sounds a lot like that. His first words were "peaceful, political action is the way to solve your frustrations".
Posted by: CCDG | February 26, 2011 at 11:37 PM
CCDG, I sort of missed the "violence bad" part of Broun's answer, I guess it was between the lines.
I think the fact that Rep. Giffords was shot through the head less than two months ago while she was meeting with constituents should have had some effect on Broun and his pathetically lame response, the fact that anyone around here is trying to explain it or defend it is a sad commentary on where we are at right now.
Posted by: RogueDem | February 27, 2011 at 02:01 AM
His first words were "peaceful, political action is the way to solve your frustrations".
It's time to lose the gun talk. The way you lose the gun talk is you don't employ it yourself, and you call people out when they employ it. You don't have to be a d**k about it, a simple "That's not appropriate" will do.
I'm quite sure the guy in question had no actual plans to kill Obama. If he had, he'd be in jail now, and his face would be all over the news.
But "ha ha ha, now let's segue to something else" is not good enough. It's freaking lame.
It's time for people in public positions to state clearly that the freaking gun talk is not appropriate. Because it's not, and we've had way, way, way more than enough of it.
If that's too high a standard for Broun to meet, he's pretty weak beer. Even for a politician.
It's time to stop making excuses for crap like this.
Posted by: russell | February 27, 2011 at 02:23 AM
During the last presidential election The Son of Cain gave a prime example (actually two) of how to react to such things. He won back a good deal of respect I had lost for him by that (he squandered it again since then though). The crowds on the other hand lost the rest of it when they booed him for calling the n-word a decent family man etc. on both occasions.
Posted by: Hartmut | February 27, 2011 at 05:00 AM
The one incident to which you're referring didn't do it for me, Hartmut. The exact exchange was:
"I do not trust Obama. I have read about him and he's a, he's, he's an Arab. He's not . . ."
"No ma'am. He's a decent, family man . . ."
The clear implication here is that Arabs are the opposite of decent family men. There's simply no other interpretation.
Posted by: Phil | February 27, 2011 at 08:24 AM
Still, Phil, I agree it was one of Senator McCain's better moments and I came very close to linking to that in my post, but in the name of brevity and Not Too Many Links, chose not to; I did very much consider it, and noting the contrast, despite its flaws.
And I do think there's something to be said for not holding public or well-known figures to account for every verbal utterance. I even think there's something to be said for not holding writers to account for every casually written statement.
I have self-interest here; if I ever hit a point where a tweet gets me fired, or my past blog comments do, well, there are lots of reasons I have no expectation of ever having a high profile job on a political campaign, or for a public official, or holding any sort of major public office, save that as people adjust more and more in future to the simple fact that almost all of us have less and less privacy, I expect social evolution on these issues -- but that'll take another decade or so, or at least several more years, if not more.
Meanwhile, simple blogging, and even commenting, gets your stuff picked over. :-)
A carefully drafted manifesto or formal piece is another matter.
This is not to disagree with your point, Phil, but supplementary.
Posted by: Gary Farber | February 27, 2011 at 02:43 PM
If folks on the left used that kind of language, folks on the right would (a) sh*t their pants and then (b) call for immediate legal action.
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"
- Barack Obama
Hmmm.
More hmmm. .
Not sure this goes one way. Remember all those examples of Democrats using bulls eyes too? BTW, I don't mind battle metaphors in politics. There is a long history. I more mind the logical fallacy that there is a connection with a nut case where there appears to be none.
Sorry bc. Yes this is garbled, Palinesque word salad. But let's try the best we can to understand it.
What is a "Second Amendment remedy," do you think? And what is she suggesting would justify such a remedy? This all comes before the coment about Reid.
Bernard: You left off the rest of the quote. She is clearly talking about victory at the polls. Again, how can she simultaneously be saying "I don't want this to happen" and "kill Harry Reid?." No, I don't think this is a covert signal any more than Obama's comment was a covert signal to start shooting Obama's opponents. She acknowledged that her Second Amendment position juxtaposed with "take him out" was very poor and changed it.
The second issue is more pertinent. Angle is IMHO right about the 2nd Amendment's purpose vis a vis tyrannical government. The real question is application. She apparently thinks we're much closer than I do. It's clear that she doesn't think we are there yet. Nonetheless, I think there is a fine line between discussing the general direction the country is headed and calling for armed insurrection and speakers need to be clear.
We all agree that government is becoming less responsive to the people and more to special interests. I think we can all imagine a situation where turning to our "Second Amendment Remedies" would be appropriate. I'd hope we all agree we are nowhere near that time now.
At the same time, I think it is appropriate to comment on the "slope." If you think the country is headed in that direction, go ahead and say it. But be clear you are not calling for action or saying it's close to being here unless you really mean it. So to an extent I agree the language needs moderation or at least clarity.
Last time I checked, the government is still allowing representation even if I am not that kindly disposed (POLITICALLY SPEAKING ONLY; LIKE CRAIG FERGUSON I THINK FEINSTEIN HAS NICE EYES). I may disagree with much of the action in the last two years, but I know the power of the ballot box still exists in America even if my efforts in California are somewhat futile. The majority is still calling the shots with the minority protected. No need to water the tree of liberty at this time.
All that being said, clarity should include comments from the gallery. No question Broun should have immediately denounced that comment and quelled the laughter. But, like I said, Broun is a piece of work. Not representative I'd say of Republicans.
Posted by: bc | February 27, 2011 at 11:26 PM
Not sure this goes one way.
It goes one way.
Remember all those examples of Democrats using bulls eyes too?
No, frankly I don't.
And in particular I don't remember all of those examples of prominent Democrats posing with rifles, ranting about the 2nd Amendment, and using bulls eyes.
Let's lay it out:
There is no significant community of people on the left threatening to take up arms if they don't prevail electorally.
There is a significant community of people on the right threatening to take up arms if they don't prevail electorally.
It is not a two-way situation, it is a one-way situation.
Folks need to knock it off.
I'm not saying Republicans / conservatives / what have you are bad evil people, I'm not saying there is no merit whatsoever in anything they say.
I'm saying that those among them who threaten to start shooting other people if they don't get their way need to knock it the hell off. And I'm saying the leadership among them, including those who are "a piece of work", should step up, take responsibility, and proactively discourage threats of political violence and allusions to political violence.
What part of any of this do you disagree with?
This *is not* a left-wing problem. Forty years ago, it was a left-wing problem. Today it is not.
Today it is a right-wing problem.
The conservative movement needs to settle its hash, and it needs to do so quite soon.
Posted by: russell | February 28, 2011 at 08:53 AM
I agree with this pretty strongly. russell and I have some substantial areas of disagreement, but this is not one of them. It's not about politics, it's about behaving as if you are a decent human being (even if you don't happen to be one) and about treating others as if they are decent human beings. It's about leadership. It's about behaving as if your words and deeds matter, even if you don't believe that they do.
Maybe I'll rethink that "it's not about politics" bit. I may have to take that back.
Yes, it's important that people are genuine. But restraint is also important. If you're prone to fits of rage, and it really helps you to vent that rage, get yourself a soundproof closet so that the rest of the world doesn't have to hear you.
If you say something stupid, retract it. Apologize, if needed. This is just basic Living With Others 101, here. By shrugging the matter off, Broun is just telling us that it doesn't matter what we think of him. Which I think is high foolishness for a guy who has to enter a popularity contest every two years, and whose job and political career depend on him winning that contest.
Of course, his tactic might be: hey, this could HELP me win. That's always a possibility.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | February 28, 2011 at 09:09 AM
bc:
I'm glad we agree that none of the protestors in Wisconsin should start picking up guns and firing them in the direction of Scott Walker.As it is, I've been arguing elsewhere, in passing, that even throwing red paint is counter-productive. It just leads to people not in agreement going hmmmm.
Though I think throwing paint is relatively non-violent, and within the range of reasonable disagreement.
Where do you stand on the question of whether people outside the Wisconsin Capitol should wear visible arms? How about the people inside who refuse to leave?
Should they brandish them?
Is armed rebellion against the U.S. government really simply of people applying themselves at some point? Would the Second Amendment really be any kind of solution for anyone against the United States military?
Or are you, I have to hypothesize, suggesting that in such an eventuality, the U.S. military itself would fragment, a la Libya?
But I don't want to put any words in your keyboard, so: what sort of "application" of the Second Amendment "vis a vis tyrannical government" we could ever get, in reality, "much closer" to?
How do you suggest this would work?
Not a rhetorical question. I don't understand this line of thinking very well, and I'd like to better understand it, since a lot of people agree with you, and much more emphatically. So I think it's important for me to better understand what so many of my fellow Americans seem to think, one way or another.
I would mind that fallacy, too. If you see anyone making it around ObWi, please inform me.Really. You're not saying I'm making it, are you? Or who are you referring to?
I'd be stronger in agreement with you, and say that the American federal government has been less responsive to the people since, well, it's always trended that way as it's grown, since at least the 1820s, and particularly since the 1890s, and particularly since between 1960, yes, 1960, and 1990.">http://freerangetalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/house_health_donations.jpg&imgrefurl=http://freerangetalk.com/%3Fp%3D17015&usg=__Uxrwh7vIisuimH8hpSOh__rsvcU=&h=383&w=635&sz=57&hl=en&start=15&sig2=Z5euV6D67oCGkdg8QbSZ4Q&zoom=1&tbnid=4XI9l1FUfv7yTM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=161&ei=tvNtTYWkAoX0tgOdmaG-Cw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcorporate%2Bdonations%2Bcongress%2Bhistorical%2Bchart%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1117%26bih%3D559%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C372&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=274&vpy=185&dur=4812&hovh=174&hovw=289&tx=161&ty=115&oei=rvNtTaaRMZC2sAPU8fzMCw&page=2&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:15&biw=1117&bih=559">1990.You just gave me a really good idea, I think, for a post, though. Thanks!
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 02, 2011 at 02:45 AM
Not as other than abstract thought experiment, or fantasy.
How many Stingers are you planning on getting, and anti-tank weapons, and?
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 02, 2011 at 03:06 AM
Is throwing custard pies legitimate? ;-)
Posted by: Hartmut | March 02, 2011 at 05:50 AM
So, Gary, your position is that it can't happen here, so there's no point in worrying about it? Seems to me that's the surest way to make sure that it DOES happen here.
I remember, not so long ago, when the government was going around burning people alive in their own homes, and shooting mothers holding their babies. This produced a growing militia movement, which while it had some overblown concerns, was a reaction to real problems of a very nasty sort.
The government isn't burning (Americans, anyway) people alive in their own homes anymore. It didn't stop because it was the nice thing to do, it stopped because the push back was getting scary.
I put it to you that, if Americans were as reticent about invoking 2nd amendment remedies as you suggest we ought to be, the federal government would still be going around burning down homes with people inside them, and Lon Horiuchi would be putting in a lot of overtime.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | March 02, 2011 at 07:45 AM
I remember, not so long ago, when the government was going around burning people alive in their own home
Aside from the Branch Davidians, can you name one other incident to which you are referring here? Two? Ten? "Going around" implies a pattern of behavior, so I'm just sorta kinda curious. As an academic exercise.
This produced a growing militia movement, which
while it had some overblown concerns, was a reaction to real problems of a very nasty sort.rolled over and played dead as soon as a Republican was back in office, despite the Patriot Act and the creation of DHS entrenching into law things that were allegedly these organizations' worst nightmares. There, I fixed it.It didn't stop because it was the nice thing to do, it stopped because the push back was getting scary.
Hahahaha. Some statements are so divorced from reality, they deserve nothing but mockery, so I'm mocking you.
Posted by: Phil | March 02, 2011 at 09:11 AM
Brett, I can't tell you how frequently the government used to burn people alive in their homes, and I can't tell you with what frequency they do it now, but what about no-knock warrants and the deaths resulting therefrom? I feel like there was a Radley Balko post which got linked here which had some very depressing data or anecdotes or both. But I don't see the GOP pushing to reduce casualties from the drug war.
Posted by: Julian | March 02, 2011 at 09:33 AM
The Branch Davidian thing is of some interest to me. There is a man in federal prison right now who was with the BATF at Waco. His exact role is unknown to me. After the debacle, he was dismissed from the BATF for reasons I never learned. He wound up working for a client of mine when not moonlighting as an undercover office for various small town police departments. Much time passed and, at a bachelor party three or so years ago, this person played a prank with an enhanced flash bang grenade he had managed to acquire. A man lost three toes. Normally, this is not something the Feds really care about, yet the BATF swooped in and, following a high speed grand jury investigation (I presented a number of witnesses at the investigation) and very speedy trial, this fellow is now serving a very hefty sentence for all kinds of crimes derived from the enhanced flash bang. Something he did at Waco really upset a lot of people with very long memories. I've always wondered if that situation would have resolved peacefully if this guy hadn't been there.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | March 02, 2011 at 09:55 AM
Corporate oppression come to gummint, which is becoming less responsive to the people and more beholden to special interests:
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/01/koch-polluter-bailout/
Brett wrote:
"I remember not so long ago when government was burning people alive in their homes, and shooting mothers holding their babies."
You could have written, "I remember not so long ago when government was going around stealing money from me and giving it to people to build their own homes and providing prenatal services to mothers holding their babies." .. to provide the full range of government behavior you find oppressive and dangerous.
I agree that it looks like this latter formulation is going to stop, too, because the push-back is getting scary.
And speaking of your American reticence, if you're going to reference Mr. Horiuchi by name, why not refer to Mr. McVeigh by name as well.
Is there some reason why you find mentioning his name as well a matter of such delicacy?
bc: As you continue signing for the hearing impaired among us who you seem to think can't read Liberty Valence's lips, I'd like to point out that these Second Amendment remedies you have placed a little further into the future, rather than say, RIGHT NOW, might come from some different direction, and in much greater force than anyone now expects.
You know it's not only conservative NRA members who are armed with custard pies and increasing their arsenals by the day to render just desserts in this country.
There is nothing stopping the same entrepreneurs who are opening liberals-only-may-join shooting ranges around the country to hone for the fateful day, from also opening liberals only custard pie shops on every block in American, like Starbucks.
We could arm ourselves with concealed, small caliber custard tarts all the way up to the big honking custard pie rocket launchers with 100-pie clips.
I'm working on a custard pie nuclear bomb .... a highly dense custard agent, held together with chewing gum, old string and, as a trigger, lint collected over the years from John Emerson's belly button.
It's amazing the stuff you pick up on the internet.
Anyway, when the pie starts to fly, I'm going to show up here and parse the word "pie" for everyone
Posted by: Countme--In | March 02, 2011 at 10:08 AM
It didn't stop because it was the nice thing to do, it stopped because the push back was getting scary
It stopped because it was a FUBAR, horrifying cluster-rhymeswithduck, and it (Waco at least) was broadcast 24/7 on major media channels, putting it in the faces of folks everywhere, right there in their living rooms.
I don't have cites and documentary evidence to offer as proof, so I'll simply offer this as my opinion. The fact that we haven't had recurrences of things like Ruby Ridge and Waco is not due to the emergence of a revitalized militia movement. It's due to general public horror and disapproval of crap like that. Disapproval which is entirely appropriate. IMVHO.
Posted by: russell | March 02, 2011 at 10:17 AM
We could arm ourselves with concealed, small caliber custard tarts all the way up to the big honking custard pie rocket launchers with 100-pie clips.
Custard pie, nothing. I got a SuperSoaker and a Nerf dart gun, and I'm not afraid to use either one!
Posted by: russell | March 02, 2011 at 10:24 AM
McKT:
Not snark.
Your 9:55 am commentary sounds like the germ for one heck of a great movie idea.
It has mystery and suspense, and some very dark paranoia, which could be deepened in many different directions, either implicating shadowy forces in the government (liberal, conservative, or better, the real force behind the puppets) and the ties of your client's man with
It's like "JFK" meets "Red Dawn", but with, say, the quiet paranoid build of "The Conversation".
You could call it "They'd Kill Us If They Could", but you don't know who "they" and "us" are.
You'll need a love interest, however, to hold American audiences.
One question to play with in the film: Who was David Koresh? And, did he really perish in the conflagration?
There is something about his rhetoric and surface flamboyant steadfastness that reminds me of the current Governor of Texas.
You could have a shot of David Koresh's footwear, boots tooled with defiant slogans, as he flees the buried building at the last moment and is smuggled away in one of the supposedly gummint tanks and into hiding back in the basement of the Lieutenant Governor's quarters.
O.K., I indulged some snark there.
Posted by: Countme--In | March 02, 2011 at 10:45 AM
I'd guess this: that he swiped this grenade, and possibly other stuff that was subsequently discovered, while he was a BATF agent. And that doing that is a federal offense that carries some freight.
If the guy really knew something damaging, he could always trade spilling the beans with attendant high-level convictions for leniency.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 02, 2011 at 11:03 AM
Haley Barbour, engaging (read: lying) at the Governor's Conference regarding Medicaid:
'Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) said states should also be free, for instance, to compel Medicaid patients to pay for part of their medicine, saying, "We have people pull up at the pharmacy window in a BMW and say they can't afford their co-payment."'
This is class warfare, Republican-style.
I am gratified though that Ronald Reagan's fat, black welfare mama-cheats have upgraded from their finger-licking fried chicken Caddies to the more cosmopolitan BMWs.
I wonder if they are picking up their meds on the way to teaching ninth-graders in Wisconsin public schools, too.
I 'spec so.
See, this conservative cracker sh*t, now nationwide in the Re .... Party is going to stop.
Abraham Lincoln's problem was that he called too early an end to the American Custard Pie War.
Posted by: Countme--In | March 02, 2011 at 11:08 AM
In "once in a lifetime" news, I actually agree with Justice Scalia about something.
Posted by: Phil | March 02, 2011 at 11:13 AM
We have people pull up at the pharmacy window in a BMW and say they can't afford their co-payment.
People don't like being compelled to contribute their money, time, or any other thing of value for the benefit of folks or purposes they don't like or approve of. For whatever reason.
Some folks suck it up as part of the cost of doing business and move on, some folks dig in their heels.
And thus, here we are, wedged among the contradictions of representative government.
We all, every single one of us, pay for stuff that bugs or offends us. There's no practical way to avoid it, short of checking out of the society as a whole.
Posted by: russell | March 02, 2011 at 11:15 AM
if you're going to reference Mr. Horiuchi by name, why not refer to Mr. McVeigh by name as well.
I'm sure that Brett was just worried about harming those hard working Scots and Irish. He's thoughtful that way.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | March 02, 2011 at 11:29 AM
I'd guess this: that he swiped this grenade, and possibly other stuff that was subsequently discovered, while he was a BATF agent. And that doing that is a federal offense that carries some freight.
If the guy really knew something damaging, he could always trade spilling the beans with attendant high-level convictions for leniency.
No, he likely got the flash/bang from a formerly licensed dealer, probably within six months or so of the bachelor party. That much is known.
As for what he knew, I think it has something to do with his role in transitioning the stand off into a gunfight. If he were to say what he did, he'd likely be in even more trouble. This is somewhat informed speculation, nothing else.
Posted by: McKinneyTexas | March 02, 2011 at 11:32 AM
When government want to outsource oppression, they turn to the private sector for oppression training:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2011/1103.stalcup-craze.html
Posted by: Countme--In | March 02, 2011 at 12:25 PM
Yet more oppression from big gummint Republicans:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/03/02/then-they-came-for-the-pranksters/
We're not there yet on the need for Second Amendment remedies, right?
Maybe by the end of the week.
Posted by: Countme--In | March 02, 2011 at 01:02 PM
"But I don't see the GOP pushing to reduce casualties from the drug war."
Or from the Democratic party. Voting doesn't allow you to exert much leverage on the government, when the legally entrenched two parties agree on a bad policy.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | March 03, 2011 at 06:29 AM
This is the sort of thing that makes me fantasize about Second Amendment solutions.
From the language concerning dogs in municiple shelters: "If a requisition (from a researcher/vivsectionist/whatever)is made for a greater number of dogs than is available at a given time, the officer or pound may supply those immediately available and may withhold from other disposition all unclaimed dogs coming into the officer’s or pound’s custody until the requisition is fully discharged, excluding impounded dogs as to which ownership is established within a reasonable period."
Thus giving "researchers" priority over adopters and rescuers. Can't get much lower than that. This provision is in the budget bill even though the dogs to be requisitioned are only going to be sold down the river for a dollar each.
That's all their lives are worth, apparently.
When I think of someone doing "research" on my dog...
Posted by: wonkie | March 05, 2011 at 09:12 PM
The current U.S. population is approximately 310,948,610.
In 2007, the leading causes of death were:
More data on the top 15 causes of death.What are your stats on "government was going around burning people alive in their own homes, and shooting mothers holding their babies" in the years 2005-2010, Brett?
Cite? Was it 100,000 mothers? 10,000? 1,000? 500?
I'd like a cite on how big a problem this is, please, since you are asserting it was such a major problem that it caused:
Okay, this is measurable. What are your numbers, and facts, please?How many were killed on both sides? How many members of militia in turn killed how many members of the U.S. military, or government, or agents of the government, or politicians, or officials, which caused this "stop[ing] because the push back was getting scary," then?
This is measurable. Was it 5,000 U.S. troops and law enforcement agents? 500? 250?
When and where did this happen?
It's your assertion. You say it's fact. Please demonstrate your facts to back up your assertion.
I'll tell you what: you come up with the numbers that prove your case, and you can write a guest post on it. Let us all know how this worked.
With cites, facts, and figures.
Fair enough? If this is a really serious problem, I think we would all like to know, and be concerned.
I miss a lot of news. Maybe there were a couple of hundred federal officials killed by militia members where I missed the stories?
Write us a post about it with the facts.
Why not?
If you could get it to me by Thursday, that would be really good timing.
Thanks!
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 08, 2011 at 01:53 AM
And I'm a tad confused: how could this be such a huge problem that the Federal government could be going around killing hundreds of mothers and yet employing only one guy to do it. Even with overtime, he'd be awfully busy, and don't you think it would take at least, oh, three or four guys?
Maybe even 500? And where are the news stories on these hundreds of scary incidents of federal mass murders?
Was there a conspiracy to suppress the news? Or, as I say, did I just miss all this news?
Write it up!
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 08, 2011 at 01:57 AM
"From the language concerning dogs in municiple shelters"
What language, where?
"If a requisition (from a researcher/vivsectionist/whatever)is made for a greater number of dogs than is available at a given time,"
This definitely doesn't sound like legal language: what are you quoting from? What law? What document? What is this in regard to? What are you referring to to or talking about? what research?
Did I miss some context? I seem to have. What are you talking about, wonkie?
Posted by: Gary Farber | March 08, 2011 at 04:15 AM
Is the idea here that the government has to be burning people alive on a daily basis, before it's a big problem? We're not allowed to notice it, and complain, until they're doing it on a routine basis?
Let's see, the MOVE bombing comes to mind. Ruby Ridge and Waco got some press coverage, though the media were remarkably supine. There were a number of lesser incidents prior, often involving fires, but it IS kind of hard to provide links to events that happened over 16 years ago, one of the weaknesses of the web.
The key point here is that Waco wasn't a one-off event that came out of the blue. It was the culmination of a trend. It was not a trend that went unnoticed.
I'd suggest you check out a copy of No More Wacos at your local library.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | March 08, 2011 at 07:37 AM
Major ROFL-s at the idea that the militia movement would have been even the tiniest bit upset about the MOVE bombing.
it IS kind of hard to provide links to events that happened over 16 years ago
You're joking, right?
Posted by: Phil | March 08, 2011 at 08:32 AM
Brett's right. Have you ever tried to find anyting online about the French Revolution? It's, like, totally impossible.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | March 08, 2011 at 09:13 AM