MSNBC continues its slo-mo crash-and-burn descent to the gutter
This is really, really not good.
A heavily armed man showed up at a healthcare rally in Arizona outside the convention center where Obama was speaking. The dumber-than-a-sack-of-rocks studio crew at MSNBC used this as a jumping off point to discuss the burgeoning white racism in response to Obama’s presidency:
Here’s a partial transcript (full transcript is here):
CONTESSA BREWER: A man at a pro-health care reform rally just outside, wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip. The Associated Press reports about a dozen people in all at that event were visible carrying firearms. And if the scene looks familiar, that’s because it should, last week a guy stood outside Obama’s health care town hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with a gun strapped to his leg and police arrested a 62-year-old before that New Hampshire event for carrying unlicensed loaded gun. And the reason we’re talking about this, a lot of talk here, Dylan, because people feel like, yes, there are Second Amendment rights for sure but also there are questions about whether this has racial overtones. I mean, here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs.
TOURE: It sounds simplistic when you put it that way, but it is real that there is tremendous anger in this country about government, the way government seems to be taking over the country, anger about a black person being president. Just several upheavals in the country over the last ten years from 9/11, to the economic tsunami, to the black man becoming president and, you know, we see these hate groups rising up and this is definitely part of that.
Uh-huh. Except this is the guy they’re talking about, the Arizona gentleman who showed up loaded for bear:
See? It’s the black guy. Grey slacks, white shirt, scary-looking automatic weapons (to me, at least; I’m terrified of guns).
In fact, the local affiliate got an interview with him, which is quite interesting:
There’s something weirdly hilarious about this African-American man’s gesture to exercise his citizenship rights (as he sees it), and even his very identity, being edited out by the schlock-jocks at MSNBC in order to do a faux-exposé of white racism. And by “hilarious,” I of course mean “so fucked up and dishonest and absurd and just goddamn sad I can hardly stand it.”
59 Responses to “MSNBC continues its slo-mo crash-and-burn descent to the gutter”
-
myiq2xu says:
Was his name Clayton Bigsby?
August 20th, 2009 at 5:11 am EST -
Not Your sweetie says:
Once more to the breech, my friends!
The tired race card is brandished once again for some other political point… Yawn… (I predicted this) -
His name is Clayton Bigsby « The Confluence says:
[...] My sources say his name is Clayton Bigsby. (h/t Violet Socks) [...]
-
aj says:
Very interesting..
After watching this guy on TV, I was telling my colleague “thank god, it was not a white guy otherwise the media will go in a tizzy about racism”. Well, his being black did not stop the media anyway. Incredible, how far the media has sunk in our country.
–
I had predicted after BO got elected, that by the end of his tenure, all the people in this country will be labelled racist because any criticism of his policy or approach is by definition racist. Well, at this pace, we will be racists by mid-term -
bluelyon says:
Wow, before I even scrolled down I knew where you were going with this story. When I saw the picture the other day of the gun-toting Black man, I wondered how the the Koolaid drinkers were going to spin this.
-
murphy says:
un freaking believable.
do they realize how damaging this is to any hope for civil society and progress?
ugh.
-
m Andrea says:
myiq2xu says:
Was his name Clayton Bigsby?
August 20th, 2009 at 5:11 am EST
His name is Clayton Bigsby « The Confluence says:
[...] My sources say his name is Clayton Bigsby. (h/t Violet Socks) [...]
August 20th, 2009 at 8:28 am EST
I just lost a great deal of respect for both Myiq2xu and his site The Confluence, though I never had any for Myiq2xu to begin with. That rumor-mongering shit will never be redeemed in my eyes. Unless of course a sourse exists besides Myiq2xu flinging monkey poo out his ass, in which case I will apologise. None of the videos mentioned his name that I noticed.
-
m Andrea says:
And really, Obama *is* the President. Any private citizen carrying weapons near where any President is scheduled to appear should be hauled away.
-
yttik says:
Oh, could it get anymore ridiculous??
I’m all for gun rights, supporting the second amendment, but again, the Obama white house is just being stupid. Take a stand already! We have never, never allowed people to carry guns around our presidents. We lock down a six block radius and drive traffic crazy. We screen people with metal detectors.
White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events
-
octogalore says:
Some of the “nonracist” comments elsewhere on this suggest that perhaps this man was put up to such a display by others. Thereby continuing MSNBC’s racially tone-deaf analysis and presupposing that this dude (drastically poor judgment notwithstanding) was unable to make his own decisions and could only be acting as a prop.
-
datechguy says:
I’m with you on MSNBC being dishonest but it would seem to me common sense not to bring such a weapon to an event.
I think it’s safe to say that that a person normal worries about security might not apply when a place is crawling with secret service.
You can assert a right without doing it foolishly remember the famous quote from Chancellor Kent when asked if he would sign a temperance pledge:
“Gentlemen, I refuse to sign any pledge. I never have been drunk, and, by the blessing of God, I never will get drunk, but I have a constitutional privilege to get drunk, and that privilege I will not sign away.”
I love that quote.
-
Monchichipox says:
I too find it unbelievable. I am also a big supporter of gun rights and until it’s safer for women I’ve long encouraged them to be a pistol packing mama. You can also get a nice little purse that goes over your shoulder and you can hold your gun in your hand while it looks just like your hand is in your pocket. (I know I’m going off topic) This weekend I was watching the news and ANOTHER woman was disappeared. This time along a jogging track. And the panel, consisting mostly of women, were mostly questioning her poor judgment for going running alone.
Had it been me he was going for he would have gotten a shot in the gut. They say that’s the most painful. Stomach acids and all.
I’d like to see a bunch of crazy, pissed off broads bearing arms like this guy but with a stylish Patty Hearts/Tanya inspired fashionable beret outside the entrance to a porn shop exercising their 2nd amendment rights.
but this around a President is INSANE. I would say that no matter who the President was.
-
donna darko says:
Obama should stop showing up at live events and lead from the Oval Office. Why should he risk his life like that? He’s doing it for attention. No anonymous sources/Rahm/scapegoats either. Why can’t he televise from the Oval Office what Anthony Weiner is saying? That Medicare is a very popular government program that spends only 3% in administrative costs compared to the 30% consumers are spending on private insurance administrative costs and that we should lower the age of eligibility ten years at a time.
-
Violet says:
mAndrea, “Clayton Bigsby” is a fictional character. Google it.
-
slythwolf says:
I would never have known this if you hadn’t posted it.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Also, “Mark Hinckley”?
How about Mark David Chapman (killed John Lennon), or John Hinckley (shot Ronal Reagan)?
Stupid fucks.
-
Mary says:
The whole point of this fiasco is to point out what crappy “journalists” MSNBC employs, and how incredibly sloppy they are, to increase their ratings. Real progressives should be embarassed by their babbling.
Violet Socks, there really ARE informed posters here, who understood the Clayton Bigsby allusion. :)
-
Dave says:
My comments here appear unworthy of posting for some reason, but why not, I’ll try again.
The only reason the right wing is after this MSNBC clip is because they desperately want cover against being called racist. Why you would jump on this is beyond me, unless you too are looking for cover.
Note also that NEWSBUSTERS edited the clip themselves. The transcript has Brewer saying this:
And if the scene looks familiar, that’s because it should, last week a guy stood outside Obama’s health care town hall in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with a gun strapped to his leg and police arrested a 62-year-old before that New Hampshire event for carrying unlicensed loaded gun.
Why doesn’t she say that in the video? CURIOUS. If you’re going to call yourself a leftist, please stop getting suckered by the right wing.
-
myiq2xu says:
I am a gun owner and a 2nd Amendment supporter but I would have no problem with a law that allowed the Secret Service to temporarily confiscate any weapons in the vicinity of the President.
I’m not talking about a suspension of the 4th Amendment that would allow them to enter and search homes, I’m taking about them being able to seize weapons they see displayed, legally or otherwise.
-
Violet says:
I’m not a supporter of gun rights, frankly. I’m also in favor of healthcare reform. So I doubt if I have much in common politically with the gentleman there in Arizona.
But this is just bad, shoddy, dishonest journalism.
-
Violet says:
My comments here appear unworthy of posting for some reason, but why not, I’ll try again.
There were two comments from you in the moderation queue. Since they’re basically duplicates (except for the impatient snark), I’m just posting this one.
The only reason the right wing is after this MSNBC clip is because they desperately want cover against being called racist. Why you would jump on this is beyond me, unless you too are looking for cover.
I’m not going to guess why anyone else is covering it, though for right-wingers I suspect it’s a gratifying example of what they consider “liberal bias” (a charge that is ridiculous in general terms, though the media is extremely kind to Obama personally).
As for me, I posted about it because it’s an example of outstandingly shoddy, dishonest, and irresponsible journalism. MSNBC was full of shit throughout the 2008 campaign, and they’re still full of shit.
No, I’m not “looking for cover” against being called a racist. You are incoherent.
Note also that NEWSBUSTERS edited the clip themselves. The transcript has Brewer saying this:
Okay, genius? Notice that I included the transcript in my post, with a link to the full version. I did that because the video was edited.
Before you show up at a blog and start insulting the host and calling her names, you might at least read the fucking post in question.
If you’re going to call yourself a leftist, please stop getting suckered by the right wing.
So, let me get this straight: objecting to MSNBC’s craptastic journalism equals being suckered by the right wing. And being a leftist means, presumably, supporting phony reporting about “white racists” that actually erases the existence of a black man who was demonstrating for his Second Amendment rights.
Got it.
And you’re a leftist? I don’t think so. I think you’re a right-wing troll trying to make genuine leftists look bad.
-
areader says:
Hey Violet,
Take a look at this:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs.....ayer_logic
That video is priceless. I want Weiner as my rep!
-
areader says:
(snicker)
I never thought I’d say that! -
propertius says:
I still wonder if at least some of these incidents aren’t planted as part of a disinformation campaign. The administration’s strategy has been to paint those who object to its policies as universally violent, dangerous, stupid, and irrational.
-
Sasha, CA says:
This weekend I was watching the news and ANOTHER woman was disappeared. This time along a jogging track. And the panel, consisting mostly of women, were mostly questioning her poor judgment for going running alone.
Had it been me he was going for he would have gotten a shot in the gut.
Where do you keep your gun when going running? Do you have a carrying permit?
I’m all for women carrying guns for self-defense (as long as they take the time to learn how to use them), but we have to be realistic: there are situations where a gun isn’t going to do you a lot of good, and this may very well have been one of them. Even if this woman kept a small gun in a fanny pack, if her attacker came from behind, he could have knocked her out with chloroform or a taser before she’d have had a chance to reach her gun. Or he could have been someone she knew, someone she wasn’t afraid of. The point is, we don’t know what happened, and saying that whatever happened to her couldn’t have happened to us — either because we wouldn’t have done something as “reckless” as going running alone, as the women on that panel were saying, or because we would have blown the guy away with our gat or kicked his ass with our mad Tae Kwon Do skills — may make us feel safer, but it gets uncomfortably close to victim blaming. As in, she shouldn’t have gone running alone or she shouldn’t have gone running unarmed. The problem with this type of talk is that it practically erases the attacker and puts the entire focus on the victim and what she did and didn’t do. And that, of course, helps to perpetuate our rape culture.
-
monchichipox says:
oh Sasha please all apologies if you thought I was blaming victim. I would never do such a thing. I hope I didn’t convey that. I wear a holster under a long baggy sweatshirt. I may or may not be able to get to it but anyone who is going to abduct you on a jogging track is most likely going to kill you and I’m going to go down swinging, shooting, kicking, spitting, grabbing. That’s a solemn vow I hope I can keep.
Women being disappeared is such an under reported national tragedy. I just want women to protect themselves as much as they can. I have no answers. I just wonder if something might change if women arming and protecting themselves begins to seep in the the conciseness of men.
Perhaps we need a million women march on Washington. All of us waving cute little pistols in the air yelling “we’re hurt as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.”
Sorry for straying Violet I will try harder to stay on topic.
-
RKMK says:
Hey Violet,
Take a look at this:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs…..ayer_logic
That video is priceless. I want Weiner as my rep!I freaking love Anthony Weiner. (My email group informed me he is engaged to HRC’s longtime aide, Huma Abedin. No surprise that he definitely comes off as My Kind of Democrat.)
-
Sasha, CA says:
for right-wingers I suspect it’s a gratifying example of what they consider “liberal bias” (a charge that is ridiculous in general terms, though the media is extremely kind to Obama personally).
That’s because Obama isn’t a liberal. Far from it. It amazed me how so many on the left weren’t the least bit suspicious when the same mainstream media morons who spent the last seven years singing the praise of and covering up for Bush and Co, who hated the Clintons, Gore, Kucinich, and anyone/anything liberal, were suddenly going gaga over Obama. You’d think that might have been a tip-off that maybe Obama wasn’t the great progressive they were hoping for, but no.
-
octogalore says:
Dave said “The only reason the right wing is after this MSNBC clip is because they desperately want cover against being called racist. Why you would jump on this is beyond me, unless you too are looking for cover.”
So wait, if Rush Limbaugh says he doesn’t like beets for some stupid reason, I cannot point out that I too don’t like beets because I think they taste bad, without somehow being just like him? How does this make any sense?
The theme of media finding the stories it wants to tell seems to be a consistent and compelling thread here. As in the earlier discussion of the misogynist who killed a bunch of women at a health club and because he had also made racist statements, the crime was billed a racist hate crime and the (less sexy) issue of misogyny was disappeared. Even where the protagonist has differing politics, it’s still IMO a worthwhile theme to examine.
-
Jon says:
For what it’s worth:
(clip)” I was there with him today (we’re fellow activists from the same group). The reason he wasn’t arrested, apart from the fact he is black, is because we called Phx.P.D. last night to inform them we were coming. We told them there would be several of us,…but left out the part about the AR-15. They assigned us a P.D. liazon officer, who met us down there and was our own personal escort the entire time. Everyone was well-behaved and all went well. We had no intention of confronting anyone. We were there for the photo op.” (source: http://www.arizonashooting.com.....5e#p595650)This is not being well reported, but wth the exception of the guy that got arrested, all of the ‘open carry’ activists were well away from the president.
Myself, I am uncertain of the wisdom of the ‘open carry’ movement, but this particular instance was carried out flawlessly.
-
Sasha, CA says:
No prob, monchichipox. You’re absolutely right that women being disappeared isn’t getting nearly enough attention. I recall a female FBI profiler saying that in every medium and large US city there are at least 2-3 “active” serial killers preying on women. Most women’s disappearances will receive very little media or police attention. Some on the left speak disparagingly about “missing white women syndrome” as if all cases involving missing white women garnered an inordinate amount of media attention, but the truth is that most women’s disappearances are virtually ignored. When a disappearance or a murder/rape does grab temporary headlines, it’s always presented as an isolated case and the word “misogynist” is never used to describe the killer, nor will the murder/rape be described as a hate crime. It’s almost as if there’s some unwritten rule all journalists must adhere to.
-
yttik says:
People are all concerned about the second amendment, the first amendment, and here we are losing one of the basic tenets of democracy, a free press that has the intelligence required to actually report the news.
-
sister of ye says:
I couldn’t manage to bring it up on Google (sorry, no mad google skills) but I recall an incident where the Secret Service issued orders that no one could enter the rooms of a private building on the side that overlooked a Bush appearance.
Then there are the numerous people arrested and fined for trying to escape the “free speech zones” set up well away from wherever Bush appeared.
There were the draconian security measures and unjust arrests during the political conventions in New York and Denver.
And people escorted out of both Bush and Obama appearances for wearing T-shirts with politically inconvenient slogans.
Sorry, no way people with guns were allowed to be there unless Obama’s people wanted them seen, undoubtedly to convince the country at large that the protesters are dangerous crackpots who must be clamped down on. And that we’d better not think unkind thoughts about Obama or we’ll be contributing to him possibly getting gunned down.
If that sounds tin foily, well, after Obama’s political machine accused Hillary Clinton of wanting to see Obama dead and got it to stick with an embarrasing number of media and bloggy people, I don’t consider any trick too low for them.
-
Dave says:
Notice that I included the transcript in my post, with a link to the full version.
There is no full version of the MSNBC video. Anywhere. I spent all night last night looking. You really think it’s OK to complain about MSNBC’s shoddy journalism/editing using a shoddy/edited Newsbusters clip? I’m not saying I’m a genius, I’m saying you’re gullible.
And being a leftist means, presumably, supporting phony reporting about “white racists” that actually erases the existence of a black man who was demonstrating for his Second Amendment rights.
…which demonstration, as is amply visible and as you’ve said yourself, is totally gratuitous. I never said I supported MSNBC or that particular story. I don’t think MSNBC is vital or necessarily helpful to the left, and that particular segment was really quite banal. Maybe it would have been better for MSNBC to use clips of all the white people carrying guns instead. Maybe they did! Maybe some gun carrying white guy showed up on screen while Brewer talked about the guy from New Hampshire in the few seconds Newsbusters edited! Heck, maybe the black guy showed up! We’ll never know thanks to Newsbusters’ editing.
Which brings me to
for right-wingers I suspect it’s a gratifying example of what they consider “liberal bias”
You got this from right wing blogs, and you should know very well why they jumped on it–they’ve listed their reasons themselves. They’re pissed because they think if they have a single black person visibly on their side, they’re immune from being called racists. MSNBC wouldn’t let them have that.
So when you write this: “exercise his citizenship rights (as he sees it), and even his very identity” it’s indistinguishable from right-wing complaints, even if your complaint has some academic clothing hanging off it.
I’m sorry, it’s ridiculous for a self-proclaimed leftist to beat a right-wing drum.
-
James says:
It is hard to stomach if you remember when “journalism” had nothing to do with “the Internet”.
Obama, the “TV guy”, gg.
-
James says:
Yes, I’ ve had a couple, but I want to sincerely thank all you guys out there who insist on not going with the Hegemonic Flow and telling some other story than theirs.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Dave, I for one have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. Are you claiming that the video of the headless black man shown on MSNBC was somehow doctored by the right, and that the “real” video showed white men hoisting their weapons, and Violet is a sucker because she didn’t fall for this hideous trick of the right?
Because that’s what I get from your rants.
You’re incoherent.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Excuse me, I mean because Violet DID fall for the trick?
-
Violet says:
Okay, Dave, since you’re new here, I’d better explain: this blog has stick test, kind of like one of those fairground rides. If you want to comment on this blog, you have to be smarter than the stick.
You are not smarter than the stick.
However, I’m going to answer your questions (or accusations or muddled hallucinations or whatever the fuck they are) in the hopes that you will then shut the fuck up. Or maybe find a nice stick to be friends with; perhaps you’ll learn something.
Notice that I included the transcript in my post, with a link to the full version.
There is no full version of the MSNBC video.
I linked to the full version of the transcript. If you’d bothered to click the link in the post, you would know that.
I, too, looked for an unedited version of the MSNBC footage, and couldn’t find it. But I read the transcript, which gives us a good idea of what the people said. As transcripts are wont to do.
Caveat! It could all be fake, the video could be fake, the transcript could be fake, the moon landing could have been faked, and the world that I perceive as reality may just be a hallucination and in fact I may be all alone here floating in my liquid chamber. But I’m gonna just take a wild fucking leap and trust that the transcript is real.
Given the transcript and the video we do have, it’s clear that Contessa Brewer talked about the gun-toting man in Arizona while video showed him from the neck down, mentioned the earlier incidents in New Hampshire, and then shifted smoothly to a discussion of “white people” showing up with guns at Obama rallies. I think that right there is sufficient evidence that MSNBC is an open running sore on the butthole of journalism. The rest of the transcript continues in the same vein. At no point did they explain that the Arizona guy at the top of the footage was black, so even if his face briefly flashed on the screen during the segment (which I strongly doubt), there would have been no reason for viewers to question the narrative they were hearing about white people with guns.
You got this from right wing blogs, and you should know very well why they jumped on it–they’ve listed their reasons themselves.
I don’t know what the antecedent of “this” is in your sentence, so I don’t know what you’re saying. Did I get the concept of “liberal bias” from right wing blogs? No, I got it from being a sentient creature in the United States for the past several decades of rightwing propaganda. Or do you mean I got the video from right-wing blogs? No, actually someone emailed it to me. And then I looked around for more information, though I couldn’t find much.
I haven’t read what the right-wing blogs are saying on this. I don’t read right-wing blogs. But I’m guessing they’re talking about liberal bias, because that’s what they always talk about.
So when you write this: “exercise his citizenship rights (as he sees it), and even his very identity” it’s indistinguishable from right-wing complaints, even if your complaint has some academic clothing hanging off it.
Dear God, let’s just pray that those rightwingers don’t get the idea of pretending they’re environmentalists or something as a coverup for clear-cutting, or pretending that they’re in favor of saving money as a cover for Big Pharma profts — because then everyone on the left would have to shut up lest their complaints be indistinguishable from the right-wing phonies! OH GOD WHAT WILL SAVE US FROM THIS DOOM?
I’m sorry, it’s ridiculous for a self-proclaimed leftist to beat a right-wing drum.
Journalistic integrity isn’t a right-wing drum. In fact, I’ve spent the past 20 years — as a leftist — struggling against the sewage of propaganda that spews from rightwing “news” and talk radio.
I am a leftist by principle. You, on the other hand (assuming you’re not a wingnut troll), are one of those people who thinks politics is just a team sport. The kind who thinks sexism is only bad when it’s directed at liberal women (or, better yet, only at women who don’t pose a threat to Obama.) Any right-wing woman is fair game, because what matters is winning.
Cheating, lying — all these things are fine as long as they’re done in the service of winning. Racism would be fine too, I’m sure, if it helped your side. You don’t believe in principles; you believe in winning. So craptastic journalism is great if it helps your side. Yellow journalism, propaganda — all good if it helps your side. And exposing the truth is bad if it could possibly help the other side.
Fuck you.
-
fortherecord says:
There were a dozen people with guns there. I wonder what sex and race the others, who were not pictured, were.
I bet I can guess.
-
fortherecord says:
-
Violet says:
One thing I forgot to add: MSNBC’s track record from last year is the single biggest reason I believe they could pull something like this. They aren’t journalists; I would call them performing seals, but I like seals.
-
octogalore says:
fortherecord: your link shows that there was only one of the twelve who carried an assault rifle. As this made a more dramatic statement, it’s understandable that the person with the AR would be pictured. That’s not an interesting or relevant point, therefore. The key point is why the media hid key details about the person carrying the AR whom they pictured to get across a particular message.
-
Rachel Ann says:
I think your logic is flawless. MSNBC clearly was trying to change a right to carry issue into an issue about racism. Whether or not one agrees with the right to carry has nothing to do with their lack of journalistic integrity.
Had they simply discussed the right to carry issue, with out all the florid descriptions and fear mongering, but merely either dealing with both sides of the issue (either generally or specifically in regards to the presence of the president & perhaps leaders of other countries) then the clip would have been fine.
But as it was they merely displayed their own biases, in addition to sloppy journalism.
When will reports go back to REPORTING?
-
yttik says:
Not only was the alleged white racist a black man, he wasn’t even really interested in the health care forum. He was protesting for his right to carry, a protest that had already gone thru the proper channels at the police dept.
Every aspect of this story was fabricated in an attempt to rile people up and sell dirty laundry.
-
fortherecord says:
No, Octogalore, my link did not show that. My link showed conflicting reports.
Not only were there a dozen armed persons, but many outlets reported that there were TWO men with AR-15s. I have seen no reports indicating that both assault-rifle-carrying demonstrators were black. .
http://news.google.com/news/se.....en&q=“two+men”+assault+rifle+obama
-
m Andrea says:
Oh I don’t even own a television anymore, so I apologize.
-
gxm17 says:
The media is kind to Obama because he is not a liberal. He is a bought and paid for corporate stooge. “Journalists” are kind to him because the same guys who write their checks, write Obama’s checks.
The divisive race-baiting lies broadcast by the Ministry of Truth are unethical, despicable and destructive.
Dave, I have no idea what political philosophy you claim but I sure as hell hope that you aren’t under the delusion that you’re left of center.
-
madamab says:
You know, there is REAL racism in this country. Fake stories like MSNBC’s only serve to trivialize it and make it seem like there really is none.
It’s really disheartening.
-
Puma for Life says:
I read somewhere that the secret service says there was no problem with this man carrying weapons; he was exercising his rights and he was no where near the president.
-
octogalore says:
Fortherecord: so the links vary on whether it was one or two men. The one who had the quote about “I still have some freedoms” was shown. Hardly enough for any kind of profiling analysis.
-
bruce nahin says:
The video was shown all day on Fox news and throughout the night…It is true
-
fortherecord says:
I find it hard to believe, octogalore, that
- 11 of 12 armed protesters said nothing inflammatory or quotable;
- 1 of 2 machine-gun-toting protesters said nothing inflammatory or quotable;
- this one man was representative of the sentiment of all armed protestors;
- that any other armed protestors were black.The above, by itself, are not enough to sustain a news story saying that an armed white man’s presence and sentiments might be indicative of racism, no.
But the actual facts are VERY different than several posters here have implied they are, including the fact that it actually seems quite LIKELY that there WAS a white man with an assault rifle present and spouting off against the President, in the company of 10 other armed white men.
-
LabRat says:
Just as a point of informed clarification, what he was carrying was almost certainly not a “machine gun”. It’s an AR-15, and while they are *theoretically* possible to convert to full auto, it would take some pretty advanced machining- the interior dimensions are different from the military rifle based on the same platform for this specific reason. It’s a semiautomatic rifle- one shot per trigger press just like a revolver, bolt action, or lever action.
They’re popular target guns because they’re accurate and extremely modular- basically for the same reasons Honda Civics are popular with people who like to tinker with cars on a budget. Same general personality type, too.
Open-carrying in a protest is provocative, but the gun itself doesn’t say “radical extremist” so much as it says “geek” if you’re familiar with guns.
-
Violet says:
Thanks, LabRat, that’s interesting. I really don’t know jack about guns.
Do you know much about the open carry movement?
-
LabRat says:
I do, actually. I’m not really all that involved myself- open carry basically requires a lot of being willing to talk to sometimes hostile strangers about your political beliefs, and I’m just not that into strangers- but that world overlaps with mine.
One thing I do know about open-carry (and carry in general) as a movement is that a number of the original laws put in place against it- especially in the South- were explicitly racially motivated. A really handy way to make sure only the right color people were armed was to ban open carry, then make concealed carry a matter of a shall-issue permit- up to the whim of the issuing official whether it would be granted. The most egregious and therefore passed-around example is the Michigan permit-to-buy law; it was passed after Dr. Ossian Sweet, a black man, fended off a lynch mob at his home with a rifle. (He had just moved into an all-white neighborhood.)
Fortherecord seems to be assuming that the black rifle-carrier’s race is purely incidental and he surely must have had white racist friends there at the same rally, but if he knows the history of his movement at all he probably sees the relationship between race and open carry VERY differently.
-
Sevesteen says:
I’m most familiar with Ohio. Here, the courts have ruled that open carry is legal, and open carry by itself cannot be grounds for disturbing the peace or similar charges. Like many states, a license is not required for open carry.
Ohioans for Concealed carry had open carry walks before our carry license law passed, carefully organized to be peaceful protests. OFCC still does occasional open carry walks, usually when a police department gives someone problems over open carry. Our annual picnic (in a public park) has also become an open carry event.
I have a license to carry concealed and don’t open carry, but strongly believe it should be legal. In part as a practical matter so that if my shirt gets bunched up I’m not breaking a law unintentionally, but also because I believe that “keep and bear” in the second amendment means “own and carry”, and that requires a non-licensed way to exercise that right.
Most open carry advocates think that too many people associate guns with either authority or criminals, and want to get people used to the idea that ordinary law abiding people carry guns, too. While I support those goals, quite a few open carry practitioners make me uncomfortable, being more in-your-face than I personally like. That type of person is probably an overall benefit in small numbers, (in most political movements…) even if they aren’t necessarily how the majority will make the most progress.
I want to thank you for pointing out this story, despite your own personal views on guns…too many people are fine with inaccurate reporting if it is biased towards their own views.
-
bob coley jr says:
Where the rifles loaded? The second amendment does not specify how fast an arm may be employed. Nor does it grant the right to endanger. In one’s private domain, sure. Part of an activated Militia, sure. Not in time of war or not well regulated or in peacetime public spaces (rules for conduct), not so clear. Own and carry does not mean ready to use at will, by mistake, or to endanger if the arms are able to be taken from the owner, because carried openly in public.
-
Perry Logan says:
Sounds like a pro-gun rally around here. ;)
Since you’re all so gung-ho, you might be interested to know that the Second Amendment was not written to form militias to fight a tyrannical government. That’s just something gun guys say over and over.
And if a gun guy says something over an dover, you can be almost certain it’s wrong.
In truth, the Second Amendment was written so the slave states could form militias to put down rebellions.
So the Second Amendment does not represent freedom. It represents slavery. To say nothing of the thousands killed each year.
