« ALL YOUR INTERNETS ARE BELONG TO US! | Main | Curses! Foiled By Morons Again!!!! »

September 02, 2009

Reporting the "Truth"

I haven't had much to say about the whole guns at protests brouhaha, mostly because I didn't trust media accounts and didn't have time to do independent research. But I find this telling:

... Countless newspapers and television networks -- from CBS to MSNBC -- have misreported that conservative protesters are threatening President Obama with guns at public events. It hasn't happened.

In Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a gun, William Kostric, joined an Aug. 11 health care protest. This was blocks away and hours before Mr. Obama's town-hall meeting in that city. Mr. Kostric was given permission to be on church property where the protest occurred and was not at the place the president visited. What most of the coverage left out was that Mr. Kostric didn't carry his gun only for the protest; he legally carries a gun with him all the time for protection.

While the media regularly used terms such as "hotheads" to mischaracterize the situation, the coverage ignored that union members who opposed the protest had attacked Mr. Kostric and a friend, kicking, pushing and spitting on them. Despite violence against him by Mr. Obama's supporters, Mr. Kostric did not draw his gun or threaten anyone.

On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked, "Are we really still debating health care when a man brings a handgun to a church where the president is speaking?" Deliberately or not, she got the facts wrong. As we know, Mr. Kostric did bring a gun to the church, but the president was not there and never was scheduled to speak there. Mr. Obama spoke at a separate event at a local high school at a different time. Not letting facts get in the way of her hysterical story line, Ms. Couric linked Mr. Kostric's gun to "fear and frankly ignorance drown[ing] out the serious debate that needs to take place about an issue that affects the lives of millions of people."

In another case in Arizona, a black man staged an event with a local radio host and carried a semiautomatic rifle a few blocks away from another Obama town-hall meeting. According to the radio station, the staged event was "partially motivated to do so because of the controversy surrounding William Kostric." This occurrence was not an example of an outraged gun-toting Obama protester, but a stunt to garner attention for a shock jock. Of course, this inconvenient truth was ignored by most news outlets.

MSNBC misrepresented the facts to try to back up a bogus claim about racism being behind opposition to Mr. Obama's agenda. On Donny Deutsch's Aug. 18 show about the Arizona town-hall meeting, the producers aired a clip of the anonymous black man carrying the so-called assault rifle -- but the network edited the tape so the man's race was obscured. Truth be damned, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer said, "There are questions whether this has a racial overtone. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists." Another commentator on the same show worried about the "anger about a black person being president." The supposed result: "You know we see these hate groups rising up."

Notice the rhetorical sleight of hand: as Megan McArdle points out with implacable logic, there is no evidence - none - that any of the health care protesters who brought guns to events where Obama never appeared are affiliated with 'hate groups':

Both the media and Obama supporters appear to have fabricated a Transitive Property of Truthiness out of whole cloth:


1. A few health reform protesters legally bring guns to a health care rally, and

2. Obama discussed health care at a completely different set of rallies. Therefore...

3. Republicans are violent and deranged racists who want to kill the President.

The worst thing about all of this is the mainstream media's refusal to report the "truth":

The email suggests that the media’s failure has helped the “frightening smears” of reform foes [to] seem “pretty convincing,” because “folks don’t know that they’re false.” It also quotes Obama’s recent denunciation of he-said-she-said journalism:

If somebody puts out misinformation… then the way the news report comes across is, “Today, such-and-such accused President Obama of putting forward death panels. The White House responded that that wasn’t true.” And then they go on to the next story. And what they don’t say is, “In fact, it isn’t true.”

Needless to say, this particular OFA effort has not been announced to…the media.

If only there were some way to force the press to say what the President of the United States wants them to. After all, it's "the truth", and who could be against that?

Posted by Cassandra at September 2, 2009 08:55 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3115

Comments

Posted by: spd rdr at September 2, 2009 11:37 AM

Teh narrative...

I can't stand the guy based upon many things, but his race does not factor into the equation. And when you get right down to it, I hope he lives to be an old man, just like Jimmy Carter.

In doing so I know that he will help to reshape and revitalize the conservative inclination of the U.S. electorate.

And I'm fairly confident that once he has led *cough* *cough* the nation for four years, we will have a new POTUS in 2012.

Posted by: bthun at September 2, 2009 12:02 PM

I can't stand the guy based upon many things, but his race does not factor into the equation.

DENIER!!!!

Posted by: Cassandra at September 2, 2009 12:25 PM

let's see. The following Presidents have been shot by citizens exercising their second amendment rights at venues where the President Of the United States was appearing. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt. Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford (twice), Ronald Reagan. That's ten out of 44 presidents (14 out of 44 if you count the foiled attempts to shoot Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. )

You do the math. then tell me why an individual should be allowed to carry a semi-automatic weapon to a town hall meeting to discuss health care reform. As if the Secret Service and other law enforcement officers don't have enough pressure carrying out their responsibilities day after day without wondering if the a*shole carrying a semi-automatic weapon is merely exercising his 2nd amendment rights or whether this is the day that one of them ends up getting shot in the line of duty.

Oy, to go back to the days when simply wearing an anti-war t-shirt was enough to get arrested at a Bush rally.

Posted by: lorenzo at September 2, 2009 02:05 PM

The following Presidents have been shot by citizens exercising their second amendment rights at venues where the President Of the United States was appearing. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt. Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford (twice), Ronald Reagan.

Hmmm. Were these Presidents shot by people who were (at the moment of the shooting) not physically at the site of the shooting?

That's impressive :p

You are dishonestly conflating what did happen (individuals legally carrying guns TO EVENTS THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ATTEND) with what the media *says* happened (individuals carrying guns to an event at which the President was present).

You do the math: how does having a gun in a location where the President IS NOT APPEARING raise the threat of his being shot?

Good God.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 2, 2009 02:14 PM

While we're on the subject, let's address the T-shirt thing.

The President and Secret Service have the right and the ability to set rules at venues where the President is appearing. That didn't change when Obama was elected.

I'm not sure how you justify overriding both state law and the Bill of Rights at a venue where the President is NOT appearing? The rationale for such rules - protecting the President - does not apply.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 2, 2009 02:19 PM

Once, just once, when a Republican spokesman is on one of the major networks, I would like to hear them ask, "just who hires the ignorant morons you have presenting the news each evening?" Does anybody doubt Katie Couric got into the University of Virginia during an open enrollment period?

Posted by: RIslander at September 2, 2009 02:39 PM

Hmmm. Were these Presidents shot by people who were (at the moment of the shooting) not physically at the site of the shooting?

Oh, come on. Any idiot with a semi-automatic bolt-action assault weapon of mass-destruction machine gun could easily fire it into the air where the bullet will come down 2 hours later half a mile away go through a buildings roof right between Obama's eyes.

It's so easy a Caveman could do it.™

But to lorenzo's point, doing it with a revolver is impossible.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 2, 2009 03:32 PM

The following Presidents have been shot by citizens exercising their second amendment rights at venues where the President Of the United States was appearing. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford (twice), Ronald Reagan.

Jackson was shot while engaged in a duel 25 years before he was elected President, Teddy Roosevelt was shot while he was campaigning, not while he was in office. Neither Franklin Roosevelt nor Harry Truman were shot, although Truman was the target of a coordinated assault on Blair House by Puerto Rican nationalists. Gerald Ford was fired at *once* -- "Squeaky" Fromme's pistol wasn't loaded.

That's ten out of 44 presidents...You do the math.

No, that's five out of forty-four. Do the history...

Posted by: BillT at September 2, 2009 03:40 PM

"doing it with a revolver is impossible"
Au contraire.

With a sturdy walking stick for bracing, the right +P ammunition, ballistics data and trajectory tables, an abacus, allowances for windage and a smidgen of body english, plus just the right Black Assault Revolver, it could happen.

Posted by: Mr. Peabody at September 2, 2009 03:47 PM

...speaking of doing the history, examine the political leanings of the assassins and *attempted* assassins.

And don't pull that "anarchists aren't Lefties" bit.

Posted by: BillT at September 2, 2009 03:53 PM

I knew that list didn't look right, but I didn't have the time to refute. Thanks, Bill!

Posted by: Miss Ladybug at September 2, 2009 05:33 PM

No, that's five out of forty-four. Do the history...

OK. Let's go through it again, Bill.

1. Jackson was shot twice, once out of office, and once in office. Go ahead, google it.

2. Teddy Roosevelt was shot 3 weeks before the election, and yes, while campaigning. I guess in your history book an assasination attempt on a Presidential candidate should count only if it's a Republican.

3. FDR was shot at in 1933 by an Italian immigrant. Five people were injured including the Mayor of Chicago. Go ahead, google it.

4. In 1950, two Puerto Ricans made an assasination attempt on Truman. A White House police officer was killed; Truman was not hurt. Add it to the foiled assasination attempt list if it makes you feel more right.

5. I only counted Ford once even though there were TWO assasination attempts on his life. Fromme pointed a *loaded .45 caliber gun [go ahead, google it] at Ford. A secret service agent prevented the gun from going off. It was discovered later that the "slide had not been put in place" making it impossible for the gun to fire. I'm sure that made a world of difference to the secret service agent. Oh, by the way, Fromme was found guilty of attempting to assasinate the president. What? you want that she shouldn't have been charged because she didn't know how to load a gun?

How many does that make, big boy? Hint you'll need to use both your hands.


Posted by: lorenzo at September 2, 2009 05:39 PM

You are dishonestly conflating what did happen (individuals legally carrying guns TO EVENTS THE PRESIDENT DID NOT ATTEND) with what the media *says* happened (individuals carrying guns to an event at which the President was present).

WTF are you talking about? A man with a gun strapped to his leg was standing across the street from where Obama was holding his Town Hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. It's on tape. What part of gun and president don't you get?

Posted by: lorenzo at September 2, 2009 05:47 PM

plus just the right Black Assault Revolver, it could happen.

I don't know.

But if it had a bayonet on it, then maybe.

Or maybe if you added a shoulder thing that goes up.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 2, 2009 05:52 PM

Dude, what part of:

In Portsmouth, N.H., a man carrying a gun, William Kostric, joined an Aug. 11 health care protest. This was blocks away and hours before Mr. Obama's town-hall meeting in that city.
did you not understand?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 2, 2009 05:55 PM

Oh, and if the video link above isn't conclusive enough for you all fact checkers, I'm sure there's a police report detailing the arrest of the guy found with a gun hiding in the high school where Obama's presidential town hall was scheduled that day.

Posted by: lorenzo at September 2, 2009 05:59 PM

This was blocks away and hours before Mr. Obama's town-hall meeting in that city.

At least you admit the President was there! But alas, I fear you must read the same history books as Big Bill. Does the name Lee Harvey Oswald ring a bell, dude?

Next...

Posted by: lorenzo at September 2, 2009 06:03 PM

I think you're wasting your time, Yu-Ain.

Lorenzo doesn't need to know the facts. He knows how he *feels* about this. And that whole "rule of law" thing? Optional under Obama:

Kostric was there around 11 a.m. ET, before Mr. Obama even left the White House en route for the Granite State, and there's no indication he ever laid eyes on the president. Nevertheless, around that time (11:35 a.m., to be precise) MSNBC's Carlos Watson called for Kostric to be forcibly disarmed: "I cannot imagine that there aren't enough lawyers in New Hampshire who can't file some sort of emergency injunction." One of his guests added: "Why can't we get rid of him now?"

MSNBC's Chris Matthews invited Kostric on his show and wondered why "you're carrying a goddamned gun at a presidential event?" (Kostric's reply: He was there peacefully, guns aren't unusual in New Hampshire, and Americans lose rights unless they exercise them.)

One MSNBC.com report indicates that Kostric was approached by a detective, possibly a Secret Service agent, who told him he could be arrested within 1,000 feet of a school with a weapon under a federal law.

Some background: the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act said that it "shall be unlawful" to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school.

That law is no longer on the books. In the case of U.S. v. Lopez, decided in 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court said violated Congress' powers to regulate interstate commerce and was therefore unconstitutional.

Congress re-enacted a version in 1996 with a narrower definition of interstate commerce; it says the statute does not apply "on private property not part of school grounds" or to anyone with a carry permit, with Kostric may or may not have.

It's reasonable to not understand the intricacies of gun laws; many vary from state to state, and few are written especially clearly.

But you'd hope that television commentators would take the time to learn at least a little before calling for measures such as court injunctions and disarming by police. One thing that MSNBC's hosts could have added is that a lawsuit filed last week in Washington, D.C. seeks to establish a broad Second Amendment right to carry firearms in public -- which, if successful, could mean that William Kostric's exercise in public handgun ownership will become much more commonplace.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5235445.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Occasionally, there is an honest journalist. Too bad Lorenzo isn't interested in what really happened, but only in stories that confirm what he already thinks.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 2, 2009 06:10 PM

Casandra says, "While we're on the subject, let's address the T-shirt thing.The President and Secret Service have the right and the ability to set rules at venues where the President is appearing. That didn't change when Obama was elected.

I'm not sure how you justify overriding both state law and the Bill of Rights at a venue where the President is NOT appearing? The rationale for such rules - protecting the President - does not apply."

What say you now that you *know* the President was at the event? Still wanna stick with the the T-Shirts bad, guns good?

Posted by: lorenzo at September 2, 2009 06:13 PM

At least you admit the President was there!

Since when did being blocks away and at the wrong time constitute "being there".

It's nice to know "I was there" for 9-11 even though I was in NY some 7 years later and couldn't get within a block of ground zero.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 2, 2009 06:19 PM

At least you admit the President was there!

Laughable.

He was not allowed within 1000 yards of where Obama was supposed to speak.

The practical accuracy of a 9mm pistol is 7-25 yards.

Say you increase it to 50 to make yourself feel better. 1000/50 means he would have to have been 20 times closer - even after doubling the accurate range of the weapon - to pose a threat.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 2, 2009 06:25 PM

The President was NOT at the event Kostric attended.

Kostric was at a church. Obama was at a school down the road from the church where Kostric was.

You don't get to make up your own facts.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 2, 2009 06:27 PM

I just realized, I'm a victim of Katrina. I know that I was only in Alabama a year before Katrina, but that only puts me "miles away, months before" but, after all, Katrina was a really big storm so that has to count for something.

Why did George Bush not care about *me*?

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 2, 2009 07:01 PM

What say you now that you *know* the President was at the event? Still wanna stick with the the T-Shirts bad, guns good?
Posted by: lorenzo at September 2, 2009 06:13 PM

Um...after reading this phrase a few times through, I am convinced that it either was written in a language other than English, or that the writer intended it to be a jolly cipher for we readers to unwind.

Accordingly, I have employed the facilities of Google to assist me in translating this strange code.

After intensive research, I believe this message can be interpreted as follows:

Hva du teller nå som du vet de president var de legger arrangementet? Fortsatt frem Stick med T-skjorter dårlige og skytevåpen gode?

Note that the writer displays serious personal issues as may relate to automatic teller machines, even going so far as to threaten such devices with "Stick", which is long been known as a code word for men's deodorant.

Any criticism of commenter's personal fascination with ballet stockings, or "leggings" as he preffers to call them (that's so CUTE!), is best left to those with less attachment than this correspondent to a directors cut DVD of "Flashdance" featuring Yummy Yummy Yummy Ms. Tummy. (That scene in the shower? Made me the man I am today.)

Anyway, goodnight, girls. And don't forget that you can always catch me on page six...if you can stay awake that long, baaaaaaaaby.

Posted by: spd rdr at September 2, 2009 07:02 PM

And if you really want proof that Kostric was not "there" at a Presidential appearence: the secret service gets kinda antsy about that stuff and they said "no big deal". In fact, Obama said the exact same thing.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 2, 2009 07:03 PM

...the secret service gets kinda antsy about that stuff and they said "no big deal". In fact, Obama said the exact same thing

WELL OF COURSE HE DID, YOU MORON! THERE WAS A GUN TO HIS HEAD!!!

spd, Lorenzo made up his mind a long time ago :p

Note that I never said anything about t-shirts (in fact, what I said was that the Secret Service and the Prez ought to be able to make the rules at venues where the President chooses to appear). But never let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of the narrative!

Posted by: Cassandra at September 2, 2009 07:12 PM

I just realized, I'm a victim of Katrina.

Yeah, me too. I was in New Orleans in 2004. And there have been hurricanes in New Orleans, you know. Therefore, my life was in danger.

Posted by: Cassandra at September 2, 2009 07:14 PM

Lorenzo:

The guy arrested in the high school was not carrying a gun. From your article:

"Young was carrying a pocket knife, police said. A subsequent search of his vehicle, parked on school property, revealed a loaded hand gun, police said."

So: he was carrying a pocket knife. On the strength of the danger of his pocket knife, they searched his car, where they discovered a gun.

However, he didn't go into the school with a gun. He owned a gun, but left it in his car. It came into the story only because they searched his car later.

Whether or not it ever occurred to him that carrying a pocket knife would be construed as a threat, or be cause for arrest, I couldn't say. Had he intended to pose a threat, however, he probably wouldn't have left his gun behind.

Posted by: Grim at September 2, 2009 07:29 PM

I'm opening a file on the potential breech of national security posed by this malcontent. Oh wait, new administration...

Ah, would you VRWC, evil-mongering terrorists mind accepting the next SSL Certificate from Whitehouse.gov that you receive?

Please pay no attention to that black Ford Crown Vic parked outside of your homes. It's just the Census Bureau.

Bonus points to anyone for turning in that joker with the black assault revolver to http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck. And any home schoolers, and anyone opposed to any government policies...

Aw heck, let's cut to the core and advise you people to turn in any fishy so and so's who exhibit any fealty to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution over The Won.

Wire tapping terrorists is so last century.

Oh how I love my job.

Posted by: J. Edgar Hubris at September 2, 2009 07:33 PM

Yeah, whatever.

Posted by: spd rdr at September 2, 2009 07:46 PM

Lessee, now, Lorenzo states that ten sitting Presidents were shot while attending public functions. I show him that there were only five who were actually shot, he cites my correction as proof that he was correct, although he still gets it wrong -- Jackson *wasn't* shot during his Presidency -- and all of a sudden *I* don't know history?

Must be that good ol' searing logic of the Left that Cassie's always talking about...

Posted by: BillT at September 3, 2009 09:17 AM

Grim,

But it was probably one of those typical assault pocket knives so beloved by a certain well known right wing hate/terrorist group.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 3, 2009 09:51 AM

Grim, my bad. I read the article too quickly to note the locations of the knife and the gun. Thanks for clearing that up.

Cassandra wrote, I'm not sure how you justify overriding both state law and the Bill of Rights at a venue where the President is NOT appearing?
* * *
The President was NOT at the event Kostric attended. Kostric was at a church. Obama was at a school down the road from the church where Kostric was. You don't get to make up your own facts.


Not at the event Kostric attended? Ohferchristsakes. You make it sound as if he was at the VFW in Concord instead of at the President's healthcare rally at Portsmouth High. With that absurd logic, Bush was NOT at the events when all those folks were arrested for wearing anti-war t-shirts. Riddle me that, girlfriend.

Kroski arrived at Portsmouth High with his loaded gun (and his Thomas Jefferson/Timothy McVeigh sign) mid-morning. The President was scheduled to speak at the Portsmouth High gymnasium at 1 pm. Get it? Kroski was at the same venue where the President was scheduled to appear. How that morphs in your circuitry to "a venue where the president is NOT appearing" is damn near stupefying.

Shortly before 1pm, the police told Kroski that he was not allowed to be on the school property with a loaded gun. The officer told him to get rid of his gun or to move away from the school grounds. Lucky for you someone posted a video of Kroski at the venue!. Ain't the internet grand?

In Mr. Kostric's own words: "I was weighing my options," Kostric said. "I was considering walking out to the car and dropping off my firearm and coming back. (The policeman) got off hte phone and relayed to me, that if I wanted to stand on the church property, which is about 30 feet from where I already was, that would be acceptable because it was private property."

So cassandra I guess the only question that remains is: In your world, how many feet are in a venue?

Posted by: lorenzo at September 3, 2009 10:13 AM

Yu ain wrote, Since when did being blocks away and at the wrong time constitute "being there". It's nice to know "I was there" for 9-11 even though I was in NY some 7 years later and couldn't get within a block of ground zero.

See my comment above for the notion that Kostric was "blocks away"; as for the wrong time, well, let's have Mr. Kostric answer that: "Me and my gun were not gone when the president arrived. I was on site [or in cassandra speak, the "venue"] at 10am and stayed till after 3pm. Ron Allen owes me some money. Furthermore, he came out and talked to me personally after Obama was on the ground
--------
Yu ain, I find it remarkable that you "couldn't get within a block of ground zero." Ground Zero has been accessible to the public since mid-2002. I've stood at the edge of the venue dozens of times with visiting friends and relatives. I've walked the perimeter of the venue just as many times where there are photographs of the towers and memorials for visitors to pay their respects. The entrance to the PATH train actually is on the former WTC site. Are you sure you were at the right place? I understand deciphering venues can be tricky for some.

Posted by: lorenzo at September 3, 2009 10:21 AM

I got to the fence line of the construction zone, but the fence line is a city block away from where the towers were.

As for being on "the site" pull up Google Earth. The church is some 750 feet away from the nearest school building.

I live closer than that to a school and yet I could never be said to have attended a PTA meeting there.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 3, 2009 10:54 AM

Big Bill wrote, Jackson *wasn't* shot during his Presidency -- and all of a sudden *I* don't know history?

Bill, Bill, Bill. Jackson was shot at in 1835. He was President from 1829 to 1837. If you count slowly, you'll see that the year 1835 occurred during the years 1829 to 1837.

Here the details in case you're still confused:

On January 30, 1835, what is believed to be the first attempt to kill a sitting President of the United States occurred just outside the United States Capitol Building. When Jackson was leaving the Capitol Building out of the East Portico after the funeral of South Carolina Representative Warren R. Davis, Richard Lawrence, an unemployed and deranged house-painter from England, either burst from a crowd or stepped out from hiding behind a column and aimed a pistol at Jackson which misfired. Lawrence then pulled out a second pistol which also misfired. It has since been postulated that the moisture from the humid weather of the day contributed to the double misfiring.

Under what theory, should a discussion of presidential assasination attempts exclude foiled attempts or gun misfires? Neither negates the fact that the individuals involved carried guns to public events where presidents was scheduled to appear.

WTF difference does it make if the gun misfires or the Secret Service wrestle the assassin to the ground? I reckon the Secret Service agents tasked with protecting the presidents would be hard pressed to find any.

Posted by: lorenzo at September 3, 2009 10:57 AM

As for being on "the site" pull up Google Earth. The church is some 750 feet away from the nearest school building.

I'm quoting Krostic. Don't blame me if the Patriot has a lousy eye.

Look you can dick around with venues, and pistols and time frames all you want but it doesn't change the fact that he arrived at a political event with a pistol strapped to his thigh. There are more than a dozen examples (you still counting, Bill?) of why that's a lousy idea. Hell, I'm even go out on a limb and say it's a bad idea to carry a pistol to a religious event (h/t Pope John Paul II). You can ignore history as you wish but I fear you do so at our nation's peril. Obviously we disagree. So be it.

Sorry kids, time's up today or this commenter. Not all of us can live the life of a "shut in" parked in front of our keyboards all day long exchanging comments with strangers.

Posted by: lorenzo at September 3, 2009 11:19 AM

Hey sport, I hope you never do have to live the life of a "shut in". Trust me when I say that it sucks to lose your mobility.

Jerk.

Posted by: bthun at September 3, 2009 11:32 AM

No one here is disputing that he showed up at a political event with a pistol. We are disputing that he attended a presidential meeting with a pistol.

It's pretty clear that he did the first and also pretty clear he didn't do the last.

It's debatable whether attending a political rally with a gun is poor marketing and counterproductive to 2A rights, but a danger to the President he most certainly was not. Bringing up how many presidents were shot is completely irrelevent as Kostric wasn't anywhere near the President.

Don't blame me if the Patriot has a lousy eye.

And yet, you still think with that lousy eye he'll be able to make a shot at 750 feet with an off the shelf pistol that only a handful of people in the world can make with the aid of custom guns, vices and scopes. Not to mention that he'd have to do it through a (most likely concrete block) wall. His vision may be lousy in the visible spectrum, but his x-ray vision is spectacular!

Secondly, I don't think anyone here has called him a Patriot. He's just another protester as far as I'm concerned. You're the one who thinks he's special, not us.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at September 3, 2009 12:50 PM

Under what theory, should a discussion of presidential assasination attempts exclude foiled attempts or gun misfires? Neither negates the fact that the individuals involved carried guns to public events where presidents was scheduled to appear.

Under what theory is a failed assassination attempt a successful one? You said Jackson was shot while he was President, I said he wasn't. You pull up the wiki proving he *wasn't* shot, and then claim it proves a point that you didn't make.

Ever heard the expression, "intellectual honesty"?

Posted by: BillT at September 3, 2009 01:04 PM

"It's debatable whether attending a political rally with a gun is poor marketing and counterproductive to 2A rights"
Having personal experience with more than a few half-bubble-off-plumb types, that observation sums up my reluctance to yammer on this topic. Even so, I will admit that I consider concealed carry to be a better option. It does not panic those who fear armed citizens nor does it give the progressives/leftist/democrats/whatever material to support their terrorists/evil-monger/whatever arguments.

Likewise, I did not see any need to pile on Lorenzo. Bill and Cass are quite capable of carrying the discussion. But the sarcasm in his patriot and shut in comments exceeded my quota.

My apologies to the Villainry for my outburst.

Posted by: bthun at September 3, 2009 01:25 PM

Well, then, okay.
But I wouldn't waste a perfectly good public apology in this case. I mean, you called the guy a "jerk." Snore City, dude.
Now if you trotted out something like, um... "socially disordered feces-flinging monkey-boy with a perverse attraction to small eco-friendly cars and latent tendencies involving long walks back and forth and back and forth Third Avenue after midnight, alone, in the rain, wearing nothing but blinking pink flourescent arrow on his head and a credit card machine around his neck" well, then you might have reason to apologize, or not.

So I guess we're all good here.
At least until nightfall.

Posted by: spd rdr at September 3, 2009 05:32 PM

Ah, I just regret the seepage of anger that I allowed to enter into my hasty comment. And at my age. That's all.

Posted by: bt_the-curmudgeon_hun at September 3, 2009 05:51 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)