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

[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.