[paraphrase]BOTH SIDES DO IT![/paraphrase]

These death threats aren't threats—they're challenges. They're attempts to inject into the public debate the sense that violence is a legitimate response to political defeat. As someone in the blogosphere whom we can't presently recall wrote yesterday, the appropriate response to a president who advocates rounding up the elderly and sending them before death panels is—if it seems like he's on the cusp of achieving that goal—to kill or rebel against him. And each publicized call for Obama's death adds to the public perception that we've reached a decision-point about whether it's time for killing. Every sign—even if the bearer is merely an angry loon who could never get close to Obama—is an inducement to someone who is willing to try. It's a message to fellow travelers, a signal that they are not alone in their rage, a promise of glory to come if they actually manage to get the job done. As we said before, there are always people who want to kill the president. The question is how many give it a shot. And the more of these signs there are in the background of Fox News' live report from some town hall in Missouri saying that someone should give it a shot, the more people actually will. And the more people that give it a shot, the more likely someone is to hit the jackpot.

This is not an idle concern: Obama gets 30 death threats every day, according to Ron Kessler, who recently wrote a book about the Secret Service. That's a four-fold increase over the number that George W. Bush—the most reviled president in modern history—received. Secret Service resources are stretched thin, and every threat has to be investigated not matter how harmless.

So what is the GOP's response so far to these threats? "Hey Democrats, They're Called The American People." "No Wonder Democrats Are Smearing Americans – They Read The Headlines." "AS CANDIDATE, OBAMA ENCOURAGED ANGER AND AGGRESSION AMONG HIS SUPPORTERS." Those are quotes from recent GOP press releases striking back at Democrats for calling a mob a mob. Where are the Republican politicians denouncing the violent rhetoric? Can we at least draw the boundary at threatening to kill his children?

I'm curious what everyone's take on bringing a gun to townhalls and Presidential speeches is. I realize it's legal, and don't have a major problem with it, except that I think it's stupid and just an intimidation tactic, especially when combined with signs calling for the blood of 'tyrants' to be shed.

I guess what I am saying is, I don't see the point in doing it, and if it's not meant to intimidate, then what is the purpose?

I guess what I am saying is, I don't see the point in doing it, and if it's not meant to intimidate, then what is the purpose?

Why not talk to the guy who did it?

What is the purpose of telling people what you think
I guess what I am saying is, I don't see the point in doing it, and it it's not meant to intimidate, then what is the purpose?

You don't think that bringing a weapon to a debate (it's like a bad joke set up) gives a message?

Wasn't Oswald a Liberal?

What about John Wilks? Also a raging Liberal ...

HEY OH!!!!

Carrying a gun to a debate has nothing to do with anything but intimidation, bully tactics, and possibly a desire to be a martyr ("they're takin our guns away!!1!")

Thanks. Ok, I'll ask again: what is the purpose of it then? Just because they can/it's legal? No other reason? Coincidence?

The Secret Service detained a man with a gun in a Des Moines park where President Bush was jogging, local police and White House officials said.

Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin said the man was about 60 yards from Bush when he was spotted by officers. He said the man had a permit for the gun, but he was detained because he was so close to the president. Mackin said the man appeared to be in the park for reasons completely unrelated to Bush’s visit.

No, the question was real. I am not anti-gun, but I don't see the point in displaying a loaded gun (along with a sign calling for the blood of the President - which he lied about just like he lied about his Birther connections) at a townhall discussion on health care.

http://trueslant.com/level/2009/08/18/didnt-the-secret-service-used-to-arrest-people-that-got-near-the-president-with-a-gun/

obama secret service lets people with registered firearms stand within shooting distance of the president. but if we try to remove them, we're infringing on their rights.

what about obama's rights to, you know, keep on living? or my rights to not have my democratically elected officials gunned down?[/b]

despite being "totally legal" under the 1st and 2nd amendments, how can anyone argue that brandishing a gun in the presence of the president of the united states and verbally calling for his assassination is anything but a terrorist tactic?

But it does deserve a reply. Of course they did not unholster their weapons. Why? Because they were not there to shoot anyone, obviously.

But they were there to send a strong(arm) message, that violence is the answer to their problems if you do not go along with what they want.

We have a word for people who use fear of violence and intimidation tactics to get what they want: the IRS. I thought you were against that sort of thing.

Seriously though, I'm not attacking these people's rights to be ignorant morons. I''m questioning their motives.

dear ramirez,

i am going to camp out in front of your house with my registered gun and a sign that implies that i want to kill you. i am going to bring a bunch of my friends with me who will also have clever signs alluding to how badly we want you dead.

please don't call the police, because i am simply exercising my rights to free speech, free assembly, and bearing arms.

but you should be very afraid of me.


xo,
justin

Be honest with yourselves and everyone else and just state your desire regarding this situation.

In Louisville, Kentucky, two young men in camouflage fatigues roamed the crowd trying to recruit new members for their militia called the Ohio Valley Freedom Fighters. They bear signs reading "AK-47s: today's pitchfork" and "Quit worrying. Start your militia training today."

The First Days

Conceivably, within the first days of an armed revolt, numerous politicians, Obama hacks, federal judges, and media members would be killed. Although the president may order active-duty military forces to supplement local law enforcement, it is doubtful that more than 40% of the military would obey his order to shoot American citizens and most of the military’s trained “gun fighters” are otherwise engaged in overseas combat zones. Additionally, many law enforcement personnel would opt to focus on humanitarian aid for those Americans caught in the crossfire versus taking on a well-armed and determined citizenry.

....

The Second Week

After a brief lull in the killing, this period would be remembered as the time of purging. Obama supporters would be summarily executed in their homes and on the streets.

...

The First Month

By this point, the military would be experiencing the highest desertion rate in its history, as active-duty members sought to ensure the safety of their own families or joined the revolt. Local law enforcement and the state’s National Guards would be providing humanitarian assistance only, and their orders would include not firing on armed Americans and using their own firearms only to defend women and children, having already experienced losses themselves for interfering with summary executions of male Obama supporters.

....