is guns. The guns are what is controlling the situation.

in their hands. The implicit threat of violence should anyone disagree with them too forcefully is pretty much their entire philosophy of social change.

Last edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

guns from people like this, and the same with crass ultra-wealth, often there's not much left IMO!

of not just the Second Amendment, but the Constitution in general. Their thinking appears to be that anyone who feels aggrieved in any way can declare "tyranny," pick up a weapon, and tell the government to screw.

That was never the idea behind the right to bear arms. What's being sold is a seductive dream of personal empowerment that's understandable up to a point, but dangerously misguided.

A lot of people -- from various points of view -- feel they are not getting what they want or need or deserve from their government. The question is how to address that. We can vote, we can rally, we can protest. Or go to court and argue the law.

What we don't do is pick up a boatload of tactical gear and firearms and dare government to come and fight to death over whatever is bothering us. To do that, and then also expect the country to rise up and object if their threats of force are ever met with actual force, is essentially a call for the end of government itself. A government which a large percentage of the membership of these particular groups depend on heavily for subsidies, by the way.

Strip it all down and it's a strategy for claiming an unequal share of power in our democracy. And yes, I would completely agree that monied interests try to wield undue influence in the same way, with a different set of weapons.

Neither is an acceptable way to decide how we're going to do things.

in our democracy." It appears they are trying to overthrow or destroy the government of the United States or the government of any State.

I don't see why they are being allowed to do all of these shenanigans with seemingly, at this stage, few repercussions. And it seems others will feel emboldened. To me, things like this should be nipped in the bud.

"Guns bad", but "ticketed attendance for public meetings" after moving deliberately to comparatively tiny venue,
THATS good.

Some days I think I woke up in bizarro-world.

They canceled the whole thing because of threats. The precious guns are safe from being banned and it won't happen at all.

If you think you woke up in bizarro-world, I must say, I think I must have, too. If I have to explain to someone why they instituted ticketed attendance and in a situation this volatile decided to ban weapons, something is not right.

Incorrect. The changed the venue and the attendance rules. That's not a cancellation, that's changing the rules.





And if I have to explain what precisely is wrong with the idea of tickets for a public meeting...well...the gun issue is the least of my worries.

There is NO excuse for it, and nothing can justify it. IOW, don't bother.

I look forward to folks like you screaming when this tactic is misused in a way that you disagree with, for the simple fact that nothing short of that will make you see whats wrong with it. Some of us are actually capable of saying "hey, I know those shoes wont fit" simply by looking at them. Others, like you apparently, must walk an entire day in uncomfortable shoes for the idea to sink in.

So be it.

where ABC reported about 30 minutes ago that the entire thing had been canceled due to threats.

Canceling the Community Meeting is not moving the community meeting, and is not changing the rules (which, both of those measures certainly made sense to me in such a volatile situation); Canceling the Community Meeting means It is CANCELED

I made a post about it.