More tea baggers

[nathanm]

Ah, yet more violent symbolism in politics. If there was a strong tide in favor of stricter gun control, I might understand the point of carrying rifles while campaigning.

Maybe there are a lot of bear attacks in that area?

Or perhaps they wanted to forestall any heckling..

[Gaspar]

Man.  Those whackos sure steal the limelight.

That's the Tea Party Senate candidate up in Alaska, trying to unseat Murkowski.  And his, um, minions.

I don't understand.  They are doing nothing illegal.  Are they "wacko" because they have guns, or because he's in a Hummer? 

[Red Arrow]

Maybe there are a lot of bear attacks in that area?

Reminds me of a window sticker a Navy friend had. It was a picture of a Bear with a rifle.  The caption was: "I support the right to arm bears."

[Conan71]

Ah, yet more violent symbolism in politics. If there was a strong tide in favor of stricter gun control, I might understand the point of carrying rifles while campaigning.

Maybe there are a lot of bear attacks in that area?

Or perhaps they wanted to forestall any heckling..

Where's the violence in that?  What's the context, other than it fits the paradigm people are trying to build of "armed insurrectionists".  Are these two in the reserves?  Are they LEO's? Is Alaska open-carry? Are those dummy guns?  Are they even loaded?  I didn't see them point a weapon at anyone else and they were being handled in a responsible manner.  Knowing the context helps instead of rushing to judgement.  As well, Alaska is a wilderness state, I believe you'd be hard-pressed to find an Alaskan who does not own a firearm. 

Personally, I wouldn't walk around with my AR-15 at a parade or campaign rally, but they are quite free to do that under the Second Amendment.  I've made no secret of it that I'm a Second Amendment advocate and I'm a gun owner.  Even though it's their right to do so, I personally do believe that civilians openly carrying firearms is a bad idea for one simple reason: when gun-control freaks decide to interpret it as a "violent protest" it gives them fodder for why gun control is a good idea.

[nathanm]

I don't understand.  They are doing nothing illegal.  Are they "wacko" because they have guns, or because he's in a Hummer? 

They're wacko because they apparently don't grasp the message they are sending when attending a political rally with guns. Should anybody stop them? No. Does that mean I shouldn't point and laugh at their stupidity? Also no.

It's stupid, Conan, because it sends the message that they're willing to use violence if they don't get their way. It also shows a grave ignorance of past events which they are emulating.

[Gaspar]

They're wacko because they apparently don't grasp the message they are sending when attending a political rally with guns. Should anybody stop them? No. Does that mean I shouldn't point and laugh at their stupidity? Also no.

It's stupid, Conan, because it sends the message that they're willing to use violence if they don't get their way. It also shows a grave ignorance of past events which they are emulating.

Good.  So we agree that we can be angry or disappointed in them, but that they are not doing anything wrong according to our laws. 

They are pushing the envelope on purpose.  They are combining the spirit of the first and second amendments.  It's an "in your face" expression designed to upset liberals and cause them to express their discomfort. 

It's working.

[we vs us]

You know, while the Second Amendment is as important as any other, it doesn't mean that it nullifies the effect that openly carried AR-15s might have on public perception.  Or hell, on my perception.  It's your right to carry a weapon but there's no way it's not going to affect our conversation.  

If you bring a gun into the public square, it immediately implies one of two things:  you mean others harm or you expect to be harmed.  Either way, it means suddenly that violence might be in the offing, and all the rest of us unarmed schlubs should either run for the hills or get a piece ourselves.  

So yeah, whether or not those rifles are legal, or are loaded, or are made of delicious marshmallows, they represent potential violence, and as political symbols (per nathan) they are unmistakable.  

Edited to add, at Gaspar:  So what's the point of causing liberals discomfort?  Other than for the jollies? 

[swake]

You know, while the Second Amendment is as important as any other, it doesn't mean that it nullifies the effect that openly carried AR-15s might have on public perception.  Or hell, on my perception.  It's your right to carry a weapon but there's no way it's not going to affect our conversation.  

If you bring a gun into the public square, it immediately implies one of two things:  you mean others harm or you expect to be harmed.  Either way, it means suddenly that violence might be in the offing, and all the rest of us unarmed schlubs should either run for the hills or get a piece ourselves.  

So yeah, whether or not those rifles are legal, or are loaded, or are made of delicious marshmallows, they represent potential violence, and as political symbols (per nathan) they are unmistakable.  

Edited to add, at Gaspar:  So what's the point of causing liberals discomfort?  Other than for the jollies? 

In his world, threatening armed violence against people he disagrees with for fun over politics is not only acceptable, it's funny. It's more than a little sick. 

[Conan71]

You know, while the Second Amendment is as important as any other, it doesn't mean that it nullifies the effect that openly carried AR-15s might have on public perception.  Or hell, on my perception.  It's your right to carry a weapon but there's no way it's not going to affect our conversation.  

If you bring a gun into the public square, it immediately implies one of two things:  you mean others harm or you expect to be harmed.  Either way, it means suddenly that violence might be in the offing, and all the rest of us unarmed schlubs should either run for the hills or get a piece ourselves.  

So yeah, whether or not those rifles are legal, or are loaded, or are made of delicious marshmallows, they represent potential violence, and as political symbols (per nathan) they are unmistakable.  

Edited to add, at Gaspar:  So what's the point of causing liberals discomfort?  Other than for the jollies?  

You should preface your comments with "My opinion is..." because that's simply your take on the matter.

Bringing a gun into a public square does not automatically mean you expect harm or expect to harm others.  In my opinion, It can also be a symbolic display of Constitutionalism, though it's not a choice I'd personally make.

Of course when you see grown men and women walking with weapons into Expo Square, it might simply mean they are there to sell them at a gun show.  

[we vs us]

You should preface your comments with "My opinion is..." because that's simply your take on the matter.

Bringing a gun into a public square does not automatically mean you expect harm or expect to harm others.  In my opinion, It can also be a symbolic display of Constitutionalism, though it's not a choice I'd personally make.

Really?  You walk into Woodland Hills Mall and three 18 1/2 year-olds in slouchy drawers with AR-15's strapped to their back are lounging around by the Mrs. Fields, waiting for something fun to happen.  Do you really think you'd react with "Aha!  The youth of today exercising their God-given Second-Amendment rights!"

While it's my opinion, I also think it's common sense.  An AR-15 (or a glock strapped to your thigh) just isn't the equivalent of wearing a watch, or your wedding ring, or carrying a wallet, or wearing a backpack.  It simply isn't that nonchalant.  Putting it on is an act of either offense or defense, simply because you know that in public the only other people packing are packing for the same reasons. 

[Gaspar]

You know, while the Second Amendment is as important as any other, it doesn't mean that it nullifies the effect that openly carried AR-15s might have on public perception.  Or hell, on my perception.  It's your right to carry a weapon but there's no way it's not going to affect our conversation.  

If you bring a gun into the public square, it immediately implies one of two things:  you mean others harm or you expect to be harmed.  Either way, it means suddenly that violence might be in the offing, and all the rest of us unarmed schlubs should either run for the hills or get a piece ourselves.  

So yeah, whether or not those rifles are legal, or are loaded, or are made of delicious marshmallows, they represent potential violence, and as political symbols (per nathan) they are unmistakable.  

Edited to add, at Gaspar:  So what's the point of causing liberals discomfort?  Other than for the jollies? 

They carry flags too.  That does not mean they are going to war.  The expression is "We still have our rights."  That is all. . .and the outrage around that expression is exactly what they want to illicit.  That outrage exposes those who would if they could take those rights away.  

Your perception is not the same as mine, or anyone else's for that matter.  And to apply your perception and call it "public perception" is. . .well you think about it.

We all have different opinions.  Your's is no more important than mine.

[Conan71]

I think Gaspar hit it on the head the best.

"Flag" made me think of a discussion we had on here a few years back about the Confederate flag.

I find it to be a horrible black eye on American history and find it to be a racist symbol.  That's my take.

Another poster, surprisingly one of the more liberal ones, said it was no such thing, it was a symbol of defiance.

Point is, there are symbols throughout society and they can all mean different things to each of us.  I don't pretend to think my symbol of someone carrying a firearm at a political rally is going to be the same as a liberal's view nor even the same as the person carrying it.

[nathanm]

I don't pretend to think my symbol of someone carrying a firearm at a political rally is going to be the same as a liberal's view nor even the same as the person carrying it.

And that's why I in no way support outlawing such practices. Well, I might support a ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in a political rally, but the arms themselves? Meh, whatever.

[Conan71]

And that's why I in no way support outlawing such practices. Well, I might support a ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in a political rally, but the arms themselves? Meh, whatever.

How would you feel about concealed carry at a rally then?

[nathanm]

How would you feel about concealed carry at a rally then?

Why would I care about that any more than I care about people carrying concealed anywhere else? I think the symbolism they are exhibiting is a problem, not the guns.

Similarly to how we expect public officials to not only avoid impropriety but the appearance of impropriety, we should expect political movements to not only avoid violence but to also be mindful of using props that could be construed as, if not support, at least ambivalence towards political violence.