Video: Koch protests include calls to lynch Clarence Thomas; Update: Common Cause “outraged” over comments

posted at 12:55 pm on February 3, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Yes, these comments come from the attendees, not the speakers at the protest organized by Common Cause at the Koch political conference, but according to the media rules on covering the Tea Party, that makes all liberals racists, and also responsible for the murders committed by Kermit Gosnell in his abortion clinic in Philadelphia. Right?

Granted, the cameraman is trying to get the people to say something outrageous, but he also doesn’t have to try very hard. He asks people at the rally what “we” should do after impeaching Clarence Thomas to get justice for Anita Hill, and he gets some mighty interesting answers:  Send him “back to the fields.” “String him up.” “Hang him.” “Torture.” One older woman wants his wife Ginny Thomas strung up as well. A younger and more creative woman wants Justice Thomas’ toes chopped off and forced-fed to him. Thomas isn’t the only one to get the necktie treatment; one protester wants Fox News executive Roger Ailes to get hung as well.

Big Government notes the hypocrisy of the protests:

Among Common Cause’s, well, common causes, are campaign finance reform, net neutrality, outlawing the filibuster, promoting cap and trade, and in this particular case, herding a mass of protesters outside a nearby hotel to yell at Charles and David Koch for being conservative and rich.

Unfortunately several “haves” have missed the memo that you’re not to be both rich and conservative at the same time, and that bankrolling your pet causes is an extra no-no if you’re conservative—thus exempting left-wing billionaire philanthropists George Soros (from whom Common Cause has received $2 million over the past eight years) Peter Lewis, John Doerr, Julian RobertsonNicolas Berggruen, and many others from being yelled at too.

At the morning panel event featuring UCI Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, activist Jim Hightower, Center for American Progress journalist and “Koch Brothers expert” Lee Fang, California Nurses Association co-president DeAnn McEwan, and President Obama’s former green jobs czar Van Jones, we were forewarned of the impending demise of both the environment and democracy at the hands of corporate lobbyists and their government shills.

There was eerily no mention of GE, AEP, Goldmann Sachs, Pfizer, Aetna, Alcoa, Xerox, Google, Motorola, IBM, or several other corporate giants who profit at taxpayer expense via their K Street connections to the Obama White House as well as the very economic and regulatory policies they lobby that these Common Cause panelists commonly endorse. But I’m sure that’s only because no one wanted to point out the obvious. Right?

Will the media cover the violence inherent on the Left with the same passion they pursued those non-existent connections between the Tucson shooter and Sarah Palin?  Will the Southern Poverty Law Center report on the “Rage on the Left” and label Common Cause a racist hate group?

Update: RB at The RightSphere makes my point more eloquently:

How long have we heard the steady mantra: “The Tea Party is racist”? Since day one. Nearly every Leftist pundit, columnist, and “journalist” on the planet has at some point or another implied or flat out stated that the Tea Party movement is racist. Congressmen have even accused Tea Party / Anti-HCR protesters of using the “n word” and spitting on them during rallies. To this day many still claim this happened despite the lack of evidence.

Are there racists who are also Tea Partiers? Of course. As the video proves, there are racists everywhere… even on the Left. Do those racists speak for the entire movement? Of course not. Do those racists represent even a significant portion of the movement? Only insofar as the racists in the video above represent a significant portion of the Left. But that has never stopped the Left from hurling their accusations against the entire conservative movement or the Tea Party, has it?

Let’s just imagine if the video above was taken during a Tea Party rally and several participants stated that a sitting US Supreme Court Justice should be sent “back to the fields” or “strung up”. Picture the news coverage. Predict what Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann (if he still had a show) would be saying right now and over the next few days. It would be non-stop. Democrat Congressional members would be using the tape as “proof” of what is really behind the opposition to ObamaCare or any other piece of legislation they want to get passed.

“The racist Tea Party.” That’s all you’d hear.

All you’ll hear about this in the national media is … the sounds of crickets chirping.

Update II: Common Cause has issued a statement condemning the remarks:

Common Cause’s 40 year history of holding power accountable has been marked by a commitment to decency and civility – in public and private. So we are of course outraged to find that a few of those attending the events around a gathering Common Cause helped to organize Sunday near Palm Springs voiced hateful, narrow-minded sentiments to an interviewer in the crowd.

We condemn bigotry and hate speech in every form, even when it comes from those who fancy themselves as our friends.

Anyone who has attended a public event has encountered people whose ideas or acts misrepresented, even embarrassed, the gathering. Every sporting event has its share of “fans” whose boorish behavior on the sidelines makes a mockery of good sportsmanship; every political gathering has a crude sign-painter or epithet-spewing heckler.

Yes, which was the exact same point that Tea Party organizers made when the media focused on the outliers (and usually provocateurs) that showed up at their rallies, and which was, in fact, the entire point of this post, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

inviolet on February 3, 2011 at 1:52 PM

I am quite sure no one in that audience knows the answer to life the universe and everything is 42.

They obviously don’t know where their towels are.

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Just a lil trip down memory lane re: Teh Balls of Breitbart (and funny to boot):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWlqiv-YL7c

inviolet on February 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM

I am quite sure no one in that audience knows the answer to life the universe and everything is 42.

They obviously don’t know where their towels are.

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Heh. And – 42, 43, whatever it takes.

inviolet on February 3, 2011 at 2:38 PM

The Left has shown racist tendencies since forever. Nothing new here. The MFM will bend over backwards to not report this. Nothing new here. Just another day in the old US of A…

joejm65 on February 3, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Just a lil trip down memory lane re: Teh Balls of Breitbart (and funny to boot):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWlqiv-YL7c

inviolet on February 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM

inviolet on February 3, 2011 at 2:39 PM

When did left-thinking Angelenos become such gigantic a-holes?

Honestly, it wasn’t like this when I moved here.

I moved from the Bay Area to get AWAY from this kind of mentality.

The Ugly American on February 3, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Any second now, one of the Leftist-Oppressive trolls will be here defending the so-called Liberal’s right to be ‘UN-Civil’…….

……Any second now….

Just wait for it……

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 2:47 PM

I never want to hear any liberal ever talk about “tone” or “civility” ever again.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/video-shows-progressive-protesters-calling-for-lynching-of-clarence-thomas

jdawg on February 3, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Liberals hate the First Amendment and anyone who would kill Clarence Thomas just for being a poor judge is either a nut job or someone who loves legal reasoning disproportionally.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Liberals hate the First Amendment and anyone who would kill Clarence Thomas just for being a poor judge is either a nut job or someone who loves legal reasoning disproportionally.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Wait.. what?

Okay, where is the real audiculous and what have to done to her, pod person.

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Okay, where is the real audiculous and what have to done to her, pod person.

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM

You missed the backhanded slap.Read the end.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:36 PM

katy the mean old lady.

thank you.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Okay, where is the real audiculous and what have to done to her, pod person.

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM

That commenter was audiculous drone #2. Audiculous drone #1 was at the Koch protest.

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 3:55 PM

my guess is that he failed to understand the sarcasm Morrissey was using in the “according to the media rules…”
stuff.

young Chip is eager, though, and that has to count for something.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 3:56 PM

That commenter was audiculous drone #2. Audiculous drone #1 was at the Koch protest.

darwin

not hardly. there are more important people to track with my drone fleet.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 2:33 PM
Heh. And – 42, 43, whatever it takes.

inviolet on February 3, 2011 at 2:38 PM

STAY CALM

Laura in Maryland on February 3, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Clarence Thomas = racist
OJ Simpson = hero

I still keep looking around to see if everyone has a goatee.

Laura in Maryland on February 3, 2011 at 4:18 PM

What people who speak this way would do to you or I is even worse than the torture and lynching that they demand be done to Justice Clarence Thomas, Mrs. Thomas, and Justice Scalia. Civility in America was abandoned by the media years ago, and its audience has followed suit in spades.

maverick muse on February 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Jiminy Cricket!!!

chickasaw42 on February 3, 2011 at 4:23 PM

one protester wants Fox News executive Roger Ailes to get hung as well.

Ed, the term is hanged. Don’t give the left any ammunition with a possible innuendo.

Lily on February 3, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Not a hoppy frood in the bunch. Their brains have been demolished to make room for that new socialist bypass.

Laura in Maryland on February 3, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Star Trek reference, FTW!

Freelancer on February 3, 2011 at 4:30 PM

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Okay, so you were Outright Lying when you said you were a ‘Moderate Conservative’, correct?

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Liberals hate the First Amendment

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 2:59 PM

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 3:24 PM

You missed the backhanded slap.Read the end.

katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2011 at 3:36 PM

She was right in the first part – from their actions, that is clearly the case.

Have to give her credit for that.

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Okay, so you were Outright Lying when you said you were a ‘Moderate Conservative’, correct?

Chip

no. that’s what I am. by my lights. neither you nut jobs nor the nut jobs on the left can stand my political moderation, though you folks are (usually) slightly more polite while arguing.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Okay, so you were Outright Lying when you said you were a ‘Moderate Conservative’, correct?

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Res ipsa loquitur

Aviator on February 3, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Is it just me or do a lot of the people in the video look and/or sound like they are drunk or stoned?

Lizzy on February 3, 2011 at 5:33 PM

no. that’s what I am. by my lights. neither you nut jobs nor the nut jobs on the left can stand my political moderation, though you folks are (usually) slightly more polite while arguing.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM

But, it’s you political “moderates” that have put the country in the position it’s in now. The go along to get along type.

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Is it just me or do a lot of the people in the video look and/or sound like they are drunk or stoned?

Lizzy on February 3, 2011 at 5:33 PM

Yeah, either that or possessed. Funny eyes.

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 5:38 PM

The go along to get along type.

darwin

I get taken for a few different things, but really do my comments here convince you that I’m The go along to get along type.????

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Okay, so you were Outright Lying when you said you were a ‘Moderate Conservative’, correct?

no. that’s what I am
audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Then as I’ve asked Numerous times – and you have dodged, just like you’ve dodged ever other question.

What principles do you hold as moderate Conservative?

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 5:48 PM

I get taken for a few different things, but really do my comments here convince you that I’m The go along to get along type.????

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Well, come to think of it … I really don’t know where you stand on anything except that you said you can’t wait to vote for Sarah Palin.

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 5:52 PM

At 2:29, Breitbart himself is the one who yells “Let’s go to Applebees!” The man once was a leftist, so he knows how they think. Brillant.
thebrokenrattle on February 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM

We were ALL Leftist once!!

That’s why candy, in the store, is at “eye level” of a 5 year-old!

DSchoen on February 3, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Chip

people are not to be trusted as they have quite often been proven capable of putting their own interests above that of the group.

anarchy is bad

dictatorship is also bad. (even thought Plato and others would approve of my ruling over you).

a group bound together by common interests will also have divergent interests and we have a relatively good system for attempting to resolve disputes

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 5:58 PM

I get taken for a few different things, but really do my comments here convince you that I’m The go along to get along type.????

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Well, come to think of it … I really don’t know where you stand on anything except that you said you can’t wait to vote for Sarah Palin.

darwin on February 3, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Her specialty is tap dancing around the truth and making disgusting, insulting comments.

Sounds like a card carrying member of the Oppressive-Left.

crr6 is much more pleasant to deal with, and probably the reason she hasn’t been banhammered yet.

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 5:59 PM

I really don’t know where you stand on anything except that you said you can’t wait to vote for Sarah Palin.

darwin

yup. I love the audience partition voting on Alaska’s Got Talent???

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Chip

people are not to be trusted as they have quite often been proven capable of putting their own interests above that of the group.

anarchy is bad

dictatorship is also bad. (even thought Plato and others would approve of my ruling over you).

a group bound together by common interests will also have divergent interests and we have a relatively good system for attempting to resolve disputes

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 5:58 PM

You’re talking in gibberish.

Let’s try it this way:
Do you believe in Limited Government? (Yes or No)

Do you support the concept of Liberty? (Yes or No)

Do you support the right of self-defense? (yes or No)

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 6:04 PM

It’s the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eleven and people are calling for the lynching of a Black American, out in the open, in daylight, in front of God, and everyone….to be fair most of those people look like they are ditching their 12 step programs to attend that organized hate fest. Is that what the Left really is? A bunch of non recovering co -depending alcoholics? They look re markedly like a bunch of dry drunks. Though to be fair to dry drunks a couple of them look like they were lit up.

This why they got shellacked last November, you can call the Democrats the Party of Love and Peace all day…but they are just a bunch of haters – and there is video to prove it. If this rally is supposed to make me want to join the Democrats, they failed miserably.

Dr Evil on February 3, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Do you believe in Limited Government? (Yes or No)

Do you support the concept of Liberty? (Yes or No)
yes, and both answer would be easy to extract from my previous “gibberish”

self-defense isn’t a yes or no answer, Chip.

ultimately we have that right, but in a social group it’s not an unqualified right. anyone living in a common law nation has obligations that limit it.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 6:15 PM

Well…..

they were against lynching before they were for it.

98ZJUSMC on February 3, 2011 at 6:20 PM

“Common Cause’s 40 year history of holding power accountable has been marked by a commitment to decency and civility – in public and private.”

Ooh, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! That’s a good one.

Django on February 3, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Plato and exactly whom would “approve of you ruling over me”?

Their criteria for who gets to rule is what?

And that applies you how?

jamie gumm on February 3, 2011 at 6:24 PM

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor our nation rising up in self-defense against them probably qualified as a “yes” answer. For those of us gifted to live in reality there are such things as absolutes in matters of self-defense. The only variable is the degree of force to be applied towards the attacker.

viking01 on February 3, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Do you believe in Limited Government? (Yes or No)

Do you support the concept of Liberty? (Yes or No)

yes, and both answer would be easy to extract from my previous “gibberish”

So, you don’t support Obamacare, and the ever increasing government intrusion into the economy?

self-defense isn’t a yes or no answer, Chip.

ultimately we have that right, but in a social group it’s not an unqualified right. anyone living in a common law nation has obligations that limit it.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 6:15 PM

So, you don’t ascribe to the second amendment on the people’s right to keep and bear arms?

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Well, the video and Common Cause statement need to be posted at the top of all conservative blogs, so we don’t need to REMIND THE LIBERALS of their own rank hypocrisy and lies.

mountainaires on February 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM

So, you don’t ascribe to the second amendment on the people’s right to keep and bear arms?

Chip

we did that one already. I believe in the words of the Second Am.

and I believe that the Second Am has a meaning that is quite consistent with federal, state and local laws that place limits on who may have guns and who may walk around with guns and who may not take guns into places.

I’m firmly of the belief that incarcerated felons may legally be denied the right to keep and bear bazookas
beneath their bunks.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 6:46 PM

So, you don’t ascribe to the second amendment on the people’s right to keep and bear arms?

Chip

I believe in the words of the Second Am.

and I believe that the Second Am has a meaning that is quite consistent with federal, state and local laws that place limits on who may have guns and who may walk around with guns and who may not take guns into places.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 6:46 PM

So incrementally destroying that right is okay with you?

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 7:01 PM

So incrementally destroying that right is okay with you?

Chip

no Chip. I believe that the right is not, and never was intended to be, an unlimited one.

I believe that sane and law-abiding people have the right to own and keep certain types of weapons in their homes and I’ve no desire to see that right destroyed.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Still waiting to hear why you should rule over me…..audiculous.

jamie gumm on February 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Don’t believe in media bias yet? Why are TEA Parties singled out as hateful and dangerous with almost no filmed evidence and hateful rallies like this go unnoticed.

And, is it just me or are liberals just nasty mean?

And also, is it just me or are liberal pseudo-intellectuals about as stupid sounding as a Pauly Shore character?

hawkdriver on February 3, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Still waiting to hear why you should rule over me…..audiculous.

jamie gumm

some small jocular reference to a Republican-type book said to have been written by Plato.

and my remark was addressed to someone other than yourself. as I don’t know you, I’m afraid that you’ve not proven yourself worthy of inclusion.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 7:21 PM

no Chip. I believe that the right is not, and never was intended to be, an unlimited one.

I believe that sane and law-abiding people have the right to own and keep certain types of weapons in their homes and I’ve no desire to see that right destroyed.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 7:06 PM

So the words

Shall not be infringed.

Don’t mean much?

Weren’t you the one arguing for the magazine ban?

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Still waiting to hear why you should rule over me…..audiculous.

jamie gumm

some small jocular reference to a Republican-type book said to have been written by Plato.

and my remark was addressed to someone other than yourself. as I don’t know you, I’m afraid that you’ve not proven yourself worthy of inclusion.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 7:21 PM

You don’t know me either, why do think that you should rule over us?

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Still waiting to hear why you should rule over me…..audiculous.

jamie gumm on February 3, 2011 at 7:15 PM

To be fair, both Plato and Aristotle thought it proper to have a ‘ruling class’ who was better inclined to write law than a class of people who would not/could not understand the nature and reason for law itself. Plato’s Republic gets involved in this. Aristotle’s On Politics mentions similar ideas. Not sure about Socrates; my memory is weaker with him.

And since they were written two and half thousand years before audiculous’ existence, it seems reasonable that audiculous was speaking in the abstract and not regarding himself/herself specifically.

anuts on February 3, 2011 at 7:31 PM

So the words

Shall not be infringed.

Don’t mean much?

on my copy, “shall” is not capitalized, and the phrase comes after a bunch of other words.
I kinda remember that the sentence starts out by explaining that this is about militias.
gave me some thoughts that there might be a social thing as much as an individual thing.

Weren’t you the one arguing for the magazine ban?

Chip

WHAT???? I don’t remember ever arguing for a magazine ban, but if it was kiddie porn…..

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 7:33 PM

some small jocular reference to a Republican-type book said to have been written by Plato.

and my remark was addressed to someone other than yourself. as I don’t know you, I’m afraid that you’ve not proven yourself worthy of inclusion.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Yeah, I’m familiar with it. Trying to see how you’ll attempt to apply it to your self. Philosopher-king? Why would Plato think you should rule anyone, whether you know them or not?

Inclusion into delusion? No, thanks.

I do like your handle, though. Audiculous: “the sound of the ridiculous”. New from Bose.

jamie gumm on February 3, 2011 at 7:34 PM

To be fair, both Plato and Aristotle thought it proper to have a ‘ruling class’ who was better inclined to write law than a class of people who would not/could not understand the nature and reason for law itself. Plato’s Republic gets involved in this. Aristotle’s On Politics mentions similar ideas. Not sure about Socrates; my memory is weaker with him.

Yeah, I get it. I read all the big books, too. Trying to find the relevance.

And since they were written two and half thousand years before audiculous’ existence, it seems reasonable that audiculous was speaking in the abstract and not regarding himself/herself specifically

.

Yeah, audiculous in no way shows any inclination that they might think they have something going on that others don’t. No, not at all. It’s all clever abstractions, mere flickering images on cave walls, so to speak. Please.

jamie gumm on February 3, 2011 at 7:37 PM

jamie gumm

well pleased that you understood the reference and will be equally pleased to hear that you understand the difference between what you perceive to be tendencies with what you can claim as certain proof of intent.

sometimes a cigar is merely a zebra.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 7:43 PM

well pleased that you understood the reference and will be equally pleased to hear that you understand the difference between what you perceive to be tendencies with what you can claim as certain proof of intent.

sometimes a cigar is merely a zebra.

Aristotle agrees with me that citing Plato in an appeal to authority is a deus ex machina if you can’t back it up.

sometimes the internet is merely a medusa

jamie gumm on February 3, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Yes, these comments come from the attendees, not the speakers at the protest organized by Common Cause at the Koch political conference, but according to the media rules on covering the Tea Party, that makes all liberals racists, and also responsible for the murders committed by Kermit Gosnell in his abortion clinic in Philadelphia. Right?

Yes it is fair… sigh. Is it right though? What should a moral and decent people do when confronted with such deceit and immorality as we face from the liberals and mainstream media?

scotash on February 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM

jamie gumm on February 3, 2011 at 7:37 PM

jamie gumm on February 3, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Ha! Both responses are pretty darn good.

anuts on February 3, 2011 at 8:01 PM

Wow ;) Yeah, that vid pretty much convinced me that Obama won by the stupid vote.

nwpammy on February 3, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Yawn. Been hearing this stuff since I was 10 years old. The real story is why 75% of Americans don’t get that the Left is vicious, intolerant and intractable.

rrpjr on February 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM

So we are of course outraged to find that a few of those attending the events around a gathering Common Cause helped to organize Sunday near Palm Springs voiced hateful, narrow-minded sentiments to an interviewer in the crowd.

Nah, they’re just upset that the remarks were made on tape. These are Common Cause people. This is how they always talk.

Blake on February 3, 2011 at 8:28 PM

So the words

Shall not be infringed.

Don’t mean much?

on my copy, “shall” is not capitalized, and the phrase comes after a bunch of other words.
I kinda remember that the sentence starts out by explaining that this is about militias.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Then why does it say:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

It says people, and even when you have ‘a bunch of other words’ shall not be infringed, is still in there.

So again, doesn’t that mean anything to you?

Or is it a case we’re you’ve been just dancing around the truth, as usual?

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 8:45 PM

We condemn bigotry and hate speech in every form, even when it comes from those who fancy themselves as our friends.

No they don’t. They never do. However, they always do what is found in the paragraph immediately following that statement – say ‘everybody does it’. That’s how they justify their actions and statements without taking the blame for them.

madmonkphotog on February 3, 2011 at 9:00 PM

yes,Chip, it means something to me.

it means that the government must never succeed in disarming the populace.

it means also the populace should have weapons because they must sometimes band together and form a militia to defend the nation and preserve our freedom from outsiders or insurrection.

see Art I Sec 8

see Militia Act of 1792.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

no, I’m not screwing with you and am trying to answer you.
again.

the second am does not come with the second part of it highlighted, Chip.
the first part explains the purpose of the second part.

the second does not simply say

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

that’s not how it begins,Chip.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 9:04 PM

to find that a few of those attending

Yeah just a few monnbats. Riiiiiiiiggghhht.

dogsoldier on February 3, 2011 at 9:10 PM

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 9:04 PM

Clearly you haven’t read Madison and Jefferson on the matter. Every real scholar of that amendment including the scouts disagree with you champ.

dogsoldier on February 3, 2011 at 9:13 PM

“scouts” gah sorry SCOTUS. Never type when tired or otherwise impaired.

dogsoldier on February 3, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Therefore, we can conclude from you advocacy and you words here, that when you say:

I believe in the words of the Second Am.

That what you really mean is that you believe in the individual words – that they exist and the mean something by themselves,

However, when taken together, you don’t believe in the right of self defense.

The fact that you can never come out and say something in a straightforward manner, that you have to make you statements deliberately complicated and deceptive leads one to believe you are lying.

If you truly were of a Conservative point of view, you would have no need of deception; you would have no need to pad your postings with nonsensical gibberish.

If you were truly a Moderate Conservative, you would come out and affirm your believes without the need for a prolonged question and answer session.

Chip on February 3, 2011 at 9:17 PM

awwwww Chip

However, when taken together, you don’t believe in the right of self defense.

there was a thousand years of English history that went into fashioning the scope of the right to self-defense prior to the Constitution and there’s been two hundred years since then for more stuff.

it’s just not as simple as you have a right to always have whatever gun you might want in any circumstance.
that just isn’t the deal.

you should be able to understand as much simply by noticing that the law has never been interpreted as broadly and as flatly as you seem to desire.

I can’t say it less gibberishly or more simply.

Self-defense is ultimately a right. BUT it is subject to a LOT of Rules.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Hey, Slappy!

Where’s that “Lies of the ACORN Videos” report that was supposed to be on my desk yesterday?

MikeZero on February 3, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Meanwhile somewhere in hell, Bull Connor is smiling.

Dino64 on February 4, 2011 at 4:38 AM

Play’s Mix Of Religion, Politics, Violence Spark Controversy
‘The Last Supper’ Runs Through Feb. 12 In Madison, Wisconsin
New Play: Liberal students invite conservatives to dinner, kill them.

maverick muse on February 4, 2011 at 7:48 AM

Play’s Mix Of Religion, Politics, Violence Spark Controversy
‘The Last Supper’ Runs Through Feb. 12 In Madison, Wisconsin
New Play: Liberal students invite conservatives to dinner, kill them.

maverick muse

hey, let’s put it on right here!!!

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 8:16 AM

The only real difference between the left and right rhetoric, is two thing.
The left is much more vocal about…and they act on it.

right2bright on February 4, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Self-defense is ultimately a right. BUT it is subject to a LOT of BS Rules.
Self-defense.It is a GOD given right, the rules I win 45 ACP double tap. Rather be judged by 12 than carried by six.
The ever increasing hate speech from the left is their undoing the left will soon be found criminally liable for incitement to crime.
Time is not on the side of the left any more. obobo has raised awareness of the left he has trigger loathing by the citizens of this Nation. Damage is being done ,we will overcome these SOB’s in our own way, AT the ballot box.

Col.John Wm. Reed on February 4, 2011 at 9:04 AM

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Some pre history for the kid.

I. Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7

Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8

Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 9

Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10

Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11
II. Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification Conventions
12

Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:

New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.

North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with “the body of the people, trained to arms” instead of “the body of the people trained to arms.”

Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with “the body of the people capable of bearing arms” instead of “the body of the people trained to arms,” and with a “militia shall not be subject to martial law” proviso as in New York.

Col.John Wm. Reed on February 4, 2011 at 9:10 AM

Self-defense is ultimately a right. BUT it is subject to a LOT of Rules.

audiculous on February 3, 2011 at 9:30 PM

And each one of those rules, Chips (Heh) away at the right.

Every time they pass one of those rules, it’s supposed to make us all safer, and they don’t.

And ever time one of those rules is taken off the books, the gun grabbers whine moan and complain about the potential carnage that never materializes.

But look at it another way, there have been few instances where Liberty has been lost overnight.

Logic dictates that it has to be accomplished by an oppressor by incremental steps, much like the frog in the boiling water analogy.

The disarm the law-abiding fanatics know they can’t simply call for the banning of guns in one fell swoop, they know they have to do it over time, using each and every ‘opportunity’ they can.

They try to divide and conquer parts of the gun owner community, so that some are willing to give up the rights of someone else.

They try and make guns less and less useable so that the law-abiding cannot defend themselves against one of their favored constituencies.

They keep on trying to have and official hand in every legal private property gun transaction that they can in hopes of yielding registration system that will eventually lead to their dream of confiscating guns.

Pushing the ‘you have that right’ BUT! With an ever increasing limits and rules to that right agenda shows an underlying anti-liberty mindset.

Chip on February 4, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Chip,

why did people in the US establish police forces?

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM

why did people in the US establish police forces?

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 11:58 AM

What does that have to do with the discussion at hand besides distract from it?

Don’t you have an actual response to my posting?

Chip on February 4, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Chip,

I thought the question germane.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Chip,

I thought the question germane.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 12:15 PM

Once again you dance around the truth, I’ll ask again:

Every time they pass one of those rules, it’s supposed to make us all safer, and they don’t.

And ever time one of those rules is taken off the books, the gun grabbers whine moan and complain about the potential carnage that never materializes.

But look at it another way, there have been few instances where Liberty has been lost overnight.

Logic dictates that it has to be accomplished by an oppressor by incremental steps, much like the frog in the boiling water analogy.

The disarm the law-abiding fanatics know they can’t simply call for the banning of guns in one fell swoop, they know they have to do it over time, using each and every ‘opportunity’ they can.

They try to divide and conquer parts of the gun owner community, so that some are willing to give up the rights of someone else.

They try and make guns less and less useable so that the law-abiding cannot defend themselves against one of their favored constituencies.

They keep on trying to have and official hand in every legal private property gun transaction that they can in hopes of yielding registration system that will eventually lead to their dream of confiscating guns.

Pushing the ‘you have that right’ BUT! With an ever increasing limits and rules to that right agenda shows an underlying anti-liberty mindset.

Chip on February 4, 2011 at 12:26 PM

and again ….. is the right of self-defense equivalent to the Sec Am or is it that they related in another way?

why have there been rules made concerning when and how the right of self-defense is legitimating invoked and when not?

why do societies attempt to provide for a common defense?

why are police forces established?

why is it that some rights are not defined to be absolute?

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM

and again ….. is the right of self-defense equivalent to the Sec Am or is it that they related in another way?

If you are up on your reading comprehension, the 2nd amendment presupposes an existing right.

why have there been rules made concerning when and how the right of self-defense is legitimating invoked and when not?

Why haven’t we been made increasingly safer by the infringing on that pre-existing right as promised by the anti-self defense folks?

why do societies attempt to provide for a common defense?

Because it’s a dangerous world?

why are police forces established?

Realistically speaking, to write out reports and sift for clues after a crime has been committed.

why is it that some rights are not defined to be absolute?

To which rights are you referring?

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Chip on February 4, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Chip,

Why haven’t we been made increasingly safer by the infringing on that pre-existing right as promised by the anti-self defense folks?

we are safer now then were the people living in western Pennsylvania or the part of Virginia known as Kentucky at the time of the Sec Am.

and I don’t really know of any folks who are “anti-self defense” outside of Quakers or other pacifists.

why are police forces established?

Realistically speaking, to write out reports and sift for clues after a crime has been committed.

you think people read those reports? you ever try it?

maybe folks expected the policemen to be a little more physically active.

why is it that some rights are not defined to be absolute?

To which rights are you referring?

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 1:31 PM

ever have someone ring your doorbell Saturday morning and drone on endlessly about how their brand of religion would guarantee that my damned soul would be cleansed and saved?
I always used to have that happen until I started keeping a shotgun by the door and and, invoking my right to self-defense, pointing at them to make them cease and scamper off.

turns out that report-writing clue-sifters without sidearms informed me that my right to self-defense was not absolute.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Chip,

Why haven’t we been made increasingly safer by the infringing on that pre-existing right as promised by the anti-self defense folks?

we are safer now then were the people living in western Pennsylvania or the part of Virginia known as Kentucky at the time of the Sec Am.

So, why are the disarm the law-abiding fanatics calling for ever more anti-self defense laws?

and I don’t really know of any folks who are “anti-self defense” outside of Quakers or other pacifists.

Try the Joyce foundation, the violence policy center, (way less than) million mom march, the brady center, etc.

why are police forces established?

Realistically speaking, to write out reports and sift for clues after a crime has been committed.

you think people read those reports? you ever try it?

More gibberish, did you known that the police are under no special obligation to protect you?

maybe folks expected the policemen to be a little more physically active.

???

why is it that some rights are not defined to be absolute?

To which rights are you referring?

ever have someone ring your doorbell Saturday morning and drone on endlessly about how their brand of religion would guarantee that my damned soul would be cleansed and saved?
I always used to have that happen until I started keeping a shotgun by the door and and, invoking my right to self-defense, pointing at them to make them cease and scamper off.

turns out that report-writing clue-sifters without sidearms informed me that my right to self-defense was not absolute.

audiculous on February 4, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Yeah, sure you do. Again, To which rights are actually you referring to?

Chip on February 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3