Second Amendment March

[3fgburner.livejournal.com]

Greetings, all -- I was at the March, yesterday. That is, I was at the real one on the Mall, not the spinoff across the river.  A week or two ago, in a discussion of Tea Partiers, I had a brief dialogue with squidb0i  about the 2A March. He said that in the absence of credible threats to gun rights, the 2A March was simply a front for "teabaggers".

With that in mind, I kept a conscious eye out for TEA Party type signs, pamphlets, handouts, etc.  Attendance was in the high hundreds, maybe over a thousand. I wandered around and saw most of the crowd at one time or another. There were 2-3, maybe 4 signs that could be interpreted as TEA Party related.  There was one sign for the John Birch Society, back in the back. There was one religious nutjob, and a couple of Third Way whackos. That's it, out of a LOT of people. Everybody else there was attending to promote gun rights.  

There was a certain amount of mockery directed at outfits like the SPLC, mostly by people like Nicky Stallard of the Pink Pistols, and Kenn Blanchard aka Black Man With A Gun(tm).  The SPLC had apparently labeled a number of the organizations there as "hate groups", including Oathkeepers.  Nicky pointed out that it was pretty stupid to call 2A advocates racists or homophobes, considering that she and Kenn were speaking.  All in all, a good time was had by those attending, and I got to see and meet some of the icons of the gun rights movement.  I even got to give Dick Heller one of my empty-holster flags: an L-shaped piece of red posterboard, with a sticker showing the DC flag and "Disarmament Without Protection". He was amused.

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

M: OMFG, when it comes to whining, there is nothing I love more than that. Again, I'll ask you a question I've asked you before. If your home were invaded or if you were attacked, would you invite the person to sit down, have a cup of tea, and chat it out?

No, but the cases of torture have not involved military men reacting to an imminent threat. They've involved the systematic torture of prisoners, many of whom were no threat whatsoever.

Or maybe you LIKE the idea of, say, our soldiers picking up some harmless taxicab driver and slowly killing him by reducing his legs to mush? Love that, do you?

M: Hell no! If you expect the U.S. military to do that, then you're a hypocrite of the highest order.

I expect the US military not practice a policy of torturing prisoners. We didn't do it during past wars. I don't expect us to do it today.

M: As for your assumption that the Oath Keepers are only vocal now because of anti-Obama sentiment, why were they against the Patriot Act? They've been very vocal about it, and you can verify that just by doing a simple search on Google or YouTube.

If so, they only got really vocal about it after President Obama was elected. Funny that.

What do you think the Oath Keepers response would have been to the south seceding? Or to the president ordering in the national guard to help integrate public schools in the south?

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Or maybe you LIKE the idea of, say, our soldiers picking up some harmless taxicab driver and slowly killing him by reducing his legs to mush?
Oh PLEASE post me a link to a legit article that says this happened as an instance of military intelligence. If you're just talking about a couple of drunk servicemen grabbing someone from a cab and doing that, it doesn't count.

If so, they only got really vocal about it after President Obama was elected. Funny that.
If they have, so what? Were you always a feminist? Were you always a Liberal? Just because someone forms an opinion later than everyone else or changes their mind on something, does that make their opinion completely invalid? I'll give you a great example; last year, I was 100% against gay marriage. Now, because of what I know same-sex couples are denied, I'm in favor of it. Does that mean my opinion shouldn't matter because I came to the conclusion after same-sex couples began fighting for those rights?

[paft.livejournal.com]

Or maybe you LIKE the idea of, say, our soldiers picking up some harmless taxicab driver and slowly killing him by reducing his legs to mush?
MV: Oh PLEASE post me a link to a legit article that says this happened as an instance of military intelligence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/international/asia/20abuse.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

MV: If you're just talking about a couple of drunk servicemen grabbing someone from a cab and doing that, it doesn't count.

Nope. Not real well informed on this issue, are you?

M: If they have, so what? Were you always a feminist? Were you always a Liberal? Just because someone forms an opinion later than everyone else or changes their mind on something, does that make their opinion completely invalid?

It does when their opinion about the validity of a given policy seems to depend almost entirely on the politics of the president invoking it.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

So this is a story of a handful of military officers who went against standard military tactics and abused a prisoner. The interpreter just sat there and did nothing and was later punished for that. The rest are on trial, so obviously justice is being served. Good.
I'm assuming the point you're trying to make is that, because of a handful of incidents that give the military a bad name, the military as a whole can't be trusted, is that correct?

Not real well informed on this issue, are you?

Why, should I be? When our soldiers are captured and tortured in foreign countries, do you collect newspaper articles, pass them out, and discuss the injustices of war? I doubt it. It's WAR, my dear. It's not pretty and happy. It's bloody and frightening. Unfortunately, Bush got us into this clusterfuck and Obama is keeping us in it until next year, so suck it up, buttercup!

[paft.livejournal.com]

MI: So this is a story of a handful of military officers who went against standard military tactics and abused a prisoner. The interpreter just sat there and did nothing and was later punished for that. The rest are on trial, so obviously justice is being served. Good.

From the article:

"...the American commander in Afghanistan, then-Lt. Gen. Daniel K. McNeill, said he had no indication that abuse by soldiers had contributed to the two deaths. The methods used at Bagram, he said, were 'in accordance with what is generally accepted as interrogation techniques."'

m: I'm assuming the point you're trying to make is that, because of a handful of incidents that give the military a bad name, the military as a whole can't be trusted, is that correct?

No. It's that torture was adopted by our military as a policy -- a policy you seem to relish. Thought I'd give you a taste of what you're cheering on.

m: Why, should I be?

Because you're posting an opinion about it.

m: When our soldiers are captured and tortured in foreign countries, do you collect newspaper articles, pass them out, and discuss the injustices of war? I doubt it.

Why? I do and I have. But I'm even angrier about it when my own country does it because torture as a policy goes against everything we're supposed to stand for.

m: It's WAR, my dear. It's not pretty and happy. It's bloody and frightening.

And yet we've managed to fight bloody and frightening wars before without institutionalizing torture.

If you were actually familiar with war and its history, you'd know that.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

No. It's that torture was adopted by our military as a policy -- a policy you seem to relish. Thought I'd give you a taste of what you're cheering on.

Yes. I'm standing on the sidelines yelling, "GO TEAM GO!" I never knew that supporting our troops and trying to understand what they have to go through was showing compliance with "torture".

Give me a break, lady. Go stick a flower in some police officer's rifle.

But I'm even angrier about it when my own country does it because torture as a policy goes against everything we're supposed to stand for.

And what's that? Where in our Constitution does it say that we're supposed to coddle those who would stand to attack us?

[paft.livejournal.com]

PFT: No. It's that torture was adopted by our military as a policy -- a policy you seem to relish. Thought I'd give you a taste of what you're cheering on.
MVL: I never knew that supporting our troops and trying to understand what they have to go through was showing compliance with "torture".

The morally bankrupt act of cheering on torture does not qualify as "supporting our troops."

Or do you imagine the rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the uniform someone is wearing?

PFT: But I'm even angrier about it when my own country does it because torture as a policy goes against everything we're supposed to stand for.
mvl: And what's that? Where in our Constitution does it say that we're supposed to coddle those who would stand to attack us?

You consider refraining from torture "coddling?"

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

The morally bankrupt act of cheering on torture does not qualify as "supporting our troops."

Point out where I'm "cheering on torture". Because the Oath Keepers have said nothing about it and I'm not on their ass to speak out against it, I'm an evil person? I smell a strawman here.

You consider refraining from torture "coddling?"

I have sincere doubts that the first resort of our military is torture. The whole "torture first, ask questions later" mantra is something perpetrated by the anti-war crowd.

[paft.livejournal.com]

MVL: Point out where I'm "cheering on torture".

When you equate not torturing prisoners with "coddling" them.

MVL:...Because the Oath Keepers have said nothing about it and I'm not on their ass to speak out against it, I'm an evil person?

Yes, indeed, the Oath Keepers haven't said anything about it. That was my point.

And since you want to bring the discussion back to the Oath Keepers, why did you claim that Newsweek article had compared them to Tim McVeigh when it hadn't? Did you bother to read it before citing it? And you STILL haven't explained what you thought was factually incorrect about it.

PFT: You consider refraining from torture "coddling?"
mvl: I have sincere doubts that the first resort of our military is torture. The whole "torture first, ask questions later" mantra is something perpetrated by the anti-war crowd.

How would you know, given that you've practically boasted about being uninformed on this subject?

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

And since you want to bring the discussion back to the Oath Keepers, why did you claim that Newsweek article had compared them to Tim McVeigh when it hadn't?
It did:
"Law-enforcement experts worry more about "lone wolves," disturbed loners with military training, like Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, than they do about loudmouth militia groups. But the feds and local authorities will be watching closely on April 19, when the Oath Keepers mark their first anniversary and join a Second Amendment March on Washington to celebrate the right to bear arms."

It's not hard to see that the person writing this article is conveying that because Timothy McVeigh was trained in the military (like the majority of Oath Keepers), they're like him. Well, maybe it's hard for you to understand that...

How would you know, given that you've practically boasted about being uninformed on this subject?
I'm not "uninformed". I just choose not to shed a single, solitary tear for one of our enemies. Clearly, he was in a prison for a reason.
My uncle served two tours during Operation Iraqi Freedom and one during Operation Desert Storm. My grandfather served during the Vietnam War and my boyfriend's brother was in Operation Desert Fox. I thank God everyday that they all came home safe. Meanwhile, people like you piss and moan about "inhumane treatment" against those who violently oppose STANDARD HUMAN RIGHTS. For example, that women have value as human beings in their own right, not in relation to their husband or their father. To this day, in downtown Kuwait, Baghdad, wherever, women can be murdered by their husband or their father for something that no one in the U.S. gives two shits about. They call it an "honor killing". There's nothing honorable about it. Were you bitching about that before Bush invaded Iraq? If so, PROVE IT, cause I'm getting pretty sick and tired of your bullshit, strawman argument that I'm "cheering on torture" because I don't spend my days weeping about it!

[paft.livejournal.com]

pft: And since you want to bring the discussion back to the Oath Keepers, why did you claim that Newsweek article had compared them to Tim McVeigh when it hadn't?
mvl: It did: "Law-enforcement experts worry more about "lone wolves," disturbed loners with military training, like Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, than they do about loudmouth militia groups. But the feds and local authorities will be watching closely on April 19, when the Oath Keepers mark their first anniversary and join a Second Amendment March on Washington to celebrate the right to bear arms."

LOL! If it's a "comparison" then it's one in which the writers highlight the difference between McVeigh and the Oath Keepers. Why would that offend you?

mvl: It's not hard to see that the person writing this article is conveying that because Timothy McVeigh was trained in the military (like the majority of Oath Keepers), they're like him.

Actually, the writer's point is that they are NOT like McVeigh in that McVeigh was a "disturbed loner" and therefore considered more of a risk.

You're really straining at gnats here.

mVL: I just choose not to shed a single, solitary tear for one of our enemies. Clearly, he was in a prison for a reason.

The taxi driver in the article? What reason was that? Did it justify what they did to him? Or would NOT killing him in so horrible a manner have qualified as "coddling" him?

MVL: Meanwhile, people like you piss and moan about "inhumane treatment" against those who violently oppose STANDARD HUMAN RIGHTS.

Yes, I do object to inhumane treatment, even when it's inflicted on people who violate human rights. I would never advocate that the American soldiers who mistreated Dilawar so badly be themselves tortured or abused.

MVL: For example, that women have value as human beings in their own right, not in relation to their husband or their father. To this day, in downtown Kuwait, Baghdad, wherever, women can be murdered by their husband or their father for something that no one in the U.S. gives two shits about. They call it an "honor killing".

And you figure this justifies torturing Iraqi prisoners?

MVL: Were you bitching about that before Bush invaded Iraq? If so, PROVE IT,

Exactly what would you accept as proof? For the record, yes, like many other American women, I was objecting to the treatment (or rather, mistreatment) of women in the Middle East back when you were still in diapers. I objected to not only honor killings, but female circumcision, child brides, the dowry murders in India, etc.

And by the way, here's an uncomfortable fact about Iraq under Hussein. As rotten as he was, women in Iraq actually enjoyed MORE freedom than did women in other Middle Eastern countries. They were unveiled, educated, and worked in professions closed to women elsewhere in the Middle East. Honor killings happened, but not as frequently in other places.

That changed after the invasion -- and not for the better.

MVL: I'm getting pretty sick and tired of your bullshit, strawman argument that I'm "cheering on torture" because I don't spend my days weeping about it!

Tough cheese. Equate NOT torturing someone with coddling them and you get called on it.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

Equate NOT torturing someone with coddling them and you get called on it.
Then please, enlighten me. Instead of this endless circle of insults, why don't you tell me what your alternative would be. I'm all ears, because I've gained little insight as to your opinion of it after reading your blog. I found one entry on Dawali and another on figures in the Spanish Inquisition. Also, nothing on supporting our troops. I guess that means I can use the same strawman argument against you, right? Because you don't talk about supporting our troops, you "cheer on" the people in the anti-war crowd who call them "terrorists", huh? Typical...

[paft.livejournal.com]

PFT: Equate NOT torturing someone with coddling them and you get called on it.
MVL: Then please, enlighten me. Instead of this endless circle of insults, why don't you tell me what your alternative would be.

My god. You honestly think NOT torturing someone is the same as "coddling" them. Sick. Especially from someone who calls herself a Christian. Who would Jesus torture, do you think?

You write as though NOT torturing someone has never been tried, as though I'm proposing something completely new. I'm not. In reality, our methods of interrogation in the past did not include a policy of torture, and yet somehow, we managed to prosecute wars successfully.

What it generally involved was establishing some level of rapport and trust with the prisoner. (Yes, I know that kind of spoils it for people who like torture but hey -- are you interested in successfully interrogating someone, or in getting your jollies by hurting them?) This does not mean putting the prisoner up in a hotel and giving him or her massages. It does mean an interrogator negotiating with them often across a table, convincing them that it's in their best interest to tell what they know.

Sorry to spoil things for you, I mean, you being a moral Christian and all who just loves her some torture.