Dionne: When The President Is Black, The Guns Come Out

Washington Post:

Try a thought experiment: What would conservatives have said if a group of loud, scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?

How would our friends on the right have reacted to someone at a Reagan or a Bush speech carrying a sign that read: "It is time to water the tree of liberty"? That would be a reference to Thomas Jefferson's declaration that the tree "must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[BitterCling]

What is it with you liberals? Somebody, anybody, please defend this idea that it’s okay to accuse all gun owners of racism. One of you leftists have got to have an argument that justifies your specious claims of racism every time somebody disagrees with Obummer. You use the claim of racism so often, I imagine you might be able to defend it. Can you?

On the other hand, maybe you focus on race as a red herring, because you are unable or unwilling to engage in debate. In any case, because it has been so overused by leftists, people should not tolerate the race card as a legitimate argument, except in cases where everyone can see clear racial motivations. If tenuous connections are drawn simply because the president is a shade or two darker than previous ones, I submit that that argument is itself racist.

[GuyRC]

The article doesn't use the word racism, must have just been in your head. Instead of baseless attacks on "liberals" how about focusing on what the article did say? If a bunch of guys went to a Bush or Reagan meeting with guns and threatening signs what would the righties have said?

[BitterCling]

"When The President Is Black, The Guns Come Out"

Are you actually arguing against the clear implication that the president being Black is the motivation for the guns being there? The words “racist” or “racism” don’t have to be present for the accusation to be made. How stupid do you think folks are? Nobody buys that BS. I hope you are simply trying to obfuscate and you don’t actually believe the crap you’re saying.

Also, it’s not an “article.” It is an editorial. Articles involve facts and do not relate opinions.

As for your last point. It did happen several times and wasn’t much of an issue. Despite liberal hand wringing, I don’t believe the liberty tree sign is an invitation to assassinate the president. Leftists were pretty clear about what they meant went they waved signs reading “Kill Bush,” and the like, though.

[OdinsEye]

How about you actually click on the link and read the entire article.

[4TJefferson]

Ok I have had it! I have had it with the guns at the town halls. I have had it with the Nazi or Stalin garbage. I have had it with birth certificates. I have had it with death panels. I have had it with these people; they can stick it! The folks got their butts kicked last November. Remember; Bin Laden plans to attack memo's? Remember reading childrens books while the towers collapsed? Remember WMDs in Iraq? Remember the "white powder" lies from Powell at the UN? Remember "henny penny" Rumsfeld in Iraq. Remember "we don't torture" and "I don't recall" Alberto? Remember "heck-of-a-job Brown after Katrina? Remember "we only wire tap the terrorists" from the Bush? Remember "the economy is fundamentally sound" from McCain? Remember "I want Obama to Fail" Rush? Remember "code orange" Ridge and Ashcroft? The greatest threats are the gopers and wing nuts that believe that trash. If they want to pick a fight. If they want an out and out civil war then put up or shut up! Tell me where and when you want to party because I am an American too pal. (2nd post)

[OdinsEye]

You have some serious anger issues.

[4TJefferson]

Guns and intimidation is nothing new. We saw it in the South during the 50's and early 60's.

[twogunmojo]

lbrty 2112 I'm a Fan of lbrty 2112 I'm a fan of this user 7 fans permalink

twogun, your 45-70 just might reach out 3000 yrds, but you better be aiming really high.. I think the 325gr will only step out at about 12 - 1300 fps. Nice moose gun.

PS I think DW1940 likes you
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:09 PM on 08/22/2009
- + New OdinsEye I'm a Fan of OdinsEye I'm a fan of this user 36 fans permalink

300 gr @ 1880 fps fired at optimal elev. angle of 30 deg only reaches 2677 yards. YMMV
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 PM on ..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­.......
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---------
http://www.levergun.com/articles/bdixon.htm.....
we talked about this before guys....the link i provided is about the famous shot by billy dixon....i understand that 3000yds is extreme maximum range for my 45-70...but 1500yd kill shots are quite possible....

[OdinsEye]

Not saying a 3000 yd shot cannot be (hence YMMV). Just showing that it is pushing the performance and and the elevation angle. I do note that the firearm used in 1874 by Dixon was a .50 caliber.

[BitterCling]

Damn, but liberals love to avoid the point of the discussion. This leftist blogger is claiming that it is racist to carry a gun or disagree with the president. This premise is illogical, stereotypical and contrary to the most basic modern American values of tolerance and diversity. How dare you drag the national debate down further with your inflammatory race baiting?

[twogunmojo]

Digeeedad I'm a Fan of Digeeedad I'm a fan of this user 31 fans permalink

Serious question.... why are you and many others so seemingly fixated on the 2nd amendment issues? Why are weapons such an important and intregal part of your lives?

Were you just as interested or intense about the constitutionally related issues surrounding illegal wiretaps, citizen surveillance or even the Iraq war?
Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:30 PM on........­..........­......
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-------
i have 2 things to say when it comes to war...
only the dead know war no more...plato..
after a 10,000 mile journey you meet an enemy the one thing you should be sure of is that the journey was his...
illegal wiretaps..­.bad....ci­tizen surveillan­ce...bad..­..iraq war....at least unecessary...i am also for a womans right to do as she pleases with her body and the complete legalization of weed....as for my guns being important and integral....not only are they my right they are also my heritage...and they are really fun.....

[Digeeedad]

Thanks for the info. I no longer own any guns, but have no problem with people who do. I'm aligned with you on all the areas you listed. I probably was making presumptive and emotionally defensive assumptions, based on some arguments I have heard from gun owners, in terms of Constitutional rights/law, yet not at all bothered by aother areas when those rights/laws are trampled on.

Interesting and intense time in our nation's history, as many things change that are an uncomfortable new reality for many.

[BitterCling]

That was a very weird diatribe. Your lack of capitalization doesn't make you look like e.e. cummings, and your wandering thoughts don't help your point, whatever that was.

Why only legalize weed? Because you like smoking it? I support the legalization of all drugs, along with strict control similar to other legal drugs.

Illegal wiretaps are, by definition "bad." It is what constitutes an illegal wiretap that some of us disagree about. It should be perfectly legal to listen, with a warrant, to a conversation originating from a known terrorist in a foreign country. Some liberals oppose that.

We'll have to disagree about the Iraq war. I have this thing against men who use chemical weapons against women and babies and fund Hezbollah.

Of course a woman has a right to do as she pleases with her body. Those of us who oppose abortion don't want to control a woman's body anymore than abortion supporters want to murder babies. We simply disagree about when a human being becomes a human being.

All of this is off topic though. The topic at hand is a leftist blogger accusing everyone who carries a gun and anyone who disagrees with the president's policies of being a racist.

[lbrty 2112]

How convenient you've forgotten the 'Kill Bush' signs.

Perhaps you could do a search on the 'Black Panthers at the 2000 Texas State GOP Convention in Texas'.

Didn't hear about that one?

[twogunmojo]

Digeeedad I'm a Fan of Digeeedad I'm a fan of this user 31 fans permalink

Of course it is fiction, but as an example used in a rhetorical question about whether or not common sense dictates that there MIGHT be places and situations where firearms might not be appropriate.

So then if that is they case, as it was just a rhetorical question... then an over 21 and liscensed college student should be allowed to openly carry loaded firearms to classes and sporting events, right?
Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:41 PM on 08/21/2009­..........­...
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­---
yes..the aforementioned student should be allowed if it is allowed within the jurisdiction of the area in which said student lives...why do you have a problem with the law.....

[BitterCling]

Liberals, in general, tend to have problems with laws that do not infringe on personal liberties. They are very selective of which rights they like and which parts of the Constitution they wish to see observed. They’re okay with the last part of the First Amendment, but not so much the first part. The Second Amendment? Forget about it, it’s the only place in the Bill of Rights that the word “people” refers to a collective, rather than individual right. Third Amendment? Most don’t know what it means (quartering of troops). Fourth, they’re mostly okay with that, until it comes to seizure of guns, and that kind of personal property is okay to seize. I think they like most of the Fifth Amendment. The rest they aren’t too familiar with but they REALLY don’t like the Tenth Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

[hhayden]

Don't they like the ninth amendment (I think it's that one) because they think it gives the government the right to do anything they like if it's for our own good in their opinion. i.e. the people have a right to health care, so the government has the right to force it on everyone. The people have a right to be fit, so it's ok to ban things they say are bad for us. etc.

[Digeeedad]

"Liberals, in general, tend to have problems with laws that do not infringe on personal liberties".

Pretty sweeping generalization there, despite your use of "in general". I don't happen to believe that generalizations such as "you libs, you neo-cons, you white people, you blacks etc tend to completely eliminate any possibility for intelligent interaction, which for some here, including yourself based on your posts, seem to enjoy participation in.

[Digeeedad]

It used to be Constitutional law that women and non-white men were not allowed to vote. Do you think this was actually a good law and we should return to that?

If you do think that amending the Constitution was justified as related to that issue, I am a bit confused as you and several posters here are criticizing myself and others for even questioning the appropriatness of firearms being carried in some specific circumstances.... NOT changing the Constitution.

Does this then mean that you would have been ridiculing or criticizing those who believed that the Constitution was wrong in excluding some citizens the right to vote?

[BitterCling]

You guys still don’t get it so I’ll spell it out very carefully:

Unarmed Black man protesting Obamacare in STL = getting an ass kicking from SEIU thugs.
Armed black man protesting Obamacare in PHX = not getting an ass kicking from SEIU thugs.

It is unethical, illogical, and morally reprehensible to accuse an entire group of people as racists because you disagree with them. The writer of this article is an inflammatory bigot.

[Darwinita]

did you even read the article? Or did you miss in history class all the lynchings and segregation? When the black people protested in the sixties, both skinny and fat, they got the hoses and the dogs set on them. Go hem your hood.

[BitterCling]

Yes, I read an article replete with stereotypical allegations of racism based on the fact that a man was carrying a gun. There are two incidents that have caused all this fervor. Of the two individuals being talked about, one is African American. That means that from a strictly statistical standpoint (an admittedly small sample group), fully fifty percent of the people in question are Black.

In any case, it is wrong to accuse an entire group of racism simply because of personal prejudice. The writer is a bigot and simply labels any opposition as racist as an expedient. It is more convenient than addressing ideas or accepting diverse views.

By the way, your refusal to spell correctly or punctuate doesn’t help your argument.

[Darwinita]

Besides the non-capitalized beginning of the post, what was incorrect? I'm assuming it's your ignorance that leads you to this mistake, since I'm in between the English classes I teach.

We shall agree to disagree, and in my mind you shall remain bigoted. May your children marry nice black lawyers like the President.

[BitterCling]

While we’re on the subject of history, were you aware that gun control has its roots in racism? Look up “Jim Crow” and “Dred Scott.” Even the term “Saturday night special” is rooted in a racial slur. You will find that the first gun control laws were specifically intended to deprive freed slaves from bearing arms. Even today, Laws are proposed to limit access to inexpensive defensive arms. Minorities are disproportionately affected by these laws. I’d be happy to provide citations if you are too lazy to do the research.

[Darwinita]

so what? what does that have to do with the fact that bringing guns to ANY Presidential event is nothing more than a form of jackboot intimidation?

try to stay on topic next time.

[twogunmojo]

just once i would like to see a quote from the anti-gunners by the founding fathers which states that the common person has no right to be safe or free from harm and has no right to defend themselves in their home or on their travels from others seeking to deprive them of life or property...and if a woman has sole jurisdiction over what is done to her body then by default that must include the right to defend it from harm with whatever means is best suited to her....or are the anti-gunners really anti-woman....

[atcrossroads]

What do you need to defend yourself from when you attend a town hall meeting, being addressed by the President of the USA? Nothing. Stop BS-ing about it. Be brave enough to admit that all that arms bearing is blatant intimidation, not self defense.

[hhayden]

The second amendment gives the right to bear arms there is no mention of "for defense" or any other reason.

.

[hhayden]

The anti gun people seem to be against everything except bigger and bigger government.

[Digeeedad]

The anti-Obama, anti government people seem to care not one bit about the plight of their fellow citizens. Even if it causes misery and deaths, (as long as it doesn't affect THEM or THEIR families directly) they will oppose and block anything this President attempts to accomplish!

[MichaelMcKLA]

If nothing else, these characters showing up with guns enable us to identify who the potentially violent racists are.

[KIVPossum]

WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS BLACK THE GUNS COME OUT.

Ain't that the truth. I grew up in a small southern town. Back in the day when blacks stepped off the sidewalk to let white folks pass. Two entrances to most stores, and always two restrooms and water fountains. KKK cross burnings sanctioned by the town. No one went shopping on Saturday because that was N day. I could go skinny dipping with my friends, but they had to sit in the balcony to watch the matinee, and buy their popcorn at different time.


But never in my life have I seen such racism as I see today.

The ignorant bastages don't see that Obama is an American who want the best for his country. They see a black man in the white house and their hate, and fear, has reached a new level.

Pundits want to make a big deal of Michelle saying (out of context), "for the first time I am proud to be an American"

I say, for the first time in my life I am truely afraid FOR America

[OdinsEye]

"They see a black man in the white house and their hate, and fear, has reached a new level. "

Which explains the BLACK fellow with the rifle how?

[atcrossroads]

Remind me how many black fellows with guns were there again, exactly? Need I remind you that not all women sided with the suffragettes? That not all black people in Africa associated with the liberation movements? Socialization, identification with the oppressor, having learnt to hate your own race, personal gain are just some explanations for this.

[larmarch5]

People wearing anit-boosh t-shirts were arrested at a boosh function. Were any armed civilians ever seen at that dood's gatherings? Got pictures?

[Knowledgeseeker]

there is a thing call racism motivating these protesters.

[hhayden]

Indeed, they are against it. Ha'ting white men is not reverse discrimination, it is just plain ra'cism.

This about socialized health care and big government takeovers. If we have this forced on us, people of every ra'ce and cr'eed will suffer.

[atcrossroads]

Nothing says suffering like being able to get health care when you need it...

Do you have any idea how incredibly stooooopid you sound?

[Knowledgeseeker]

If you notice none of these right wing protester look like they graduated from high school. they are far from civilize.

[hhayden]

Actually, like myself, they graduated when you could actually get a good education. Few kids dropped out and there were no metal detectors. I'd like to see you make a good case for our current system with all the government interference. How many drop out now? Have you tried to have a conversation with the average teenager about anything?

[Digeeedad]

Countries where students have far SUPERIOR academic success actually have MORE "government interference" as you call it in their nations' education systems.