Gun toter at Obama rally is a birther and tied to Arizona separatist groups

http://www.azcentral.com/members/Blog/WATCHBLOG/60115

The man who brought a gun to President Barack Obama's town hall meeting on Tuesday is a former Arizona resident with ties to an extreme right-wing group that calls for "resistance...against unconstitutional or illegal behavior by government officials."

William Kostric, 36, formerly of Scottsdale, stood outside the New Hampshire meeting on healthcare with a gun holstered at his thigh and holding a sign proclaiming that "it is time to water the tree of liberty."

Records show that Kostric is a "team member" of the Arizona chapter of We the People Foundation, which has a stated goal of "returning America to it's founding principles."

On its Web site, We the People's founder, Robert Schulz, says: "Our recent initiatives have focused largely on questioning the federal government's abuse of its Constitutional powers to incur debt, tax labor, create currency by fiat, conduct war and police the peace," We the People says on its Web site.

While the group maintains that it is not concerned with politics or personalities in office, Schulz is a proud supporter of the birther movement (those folks who believe that Obama wasn't really born in the United States and shouldn't be president) and We the People joined a lawsuit challenging Obama's presidency based on his citizenship.

http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2009m8d12-Test-your-guntotin-hypocrisy

Test your gun-totin' hypocrisy!

August 12, 9:20 PMPopulist ExaminerBruce Maiman

<snip> Kostric is reportedly listed online as a "team member" of the Arizona chapter of We the People, described as "the far-right group best known for joining a lawsuit challenging Obama's right to be president based on his not being a U-S citizen." Kostric says he moved to New Hampshire because it's a "live free or die" state --and he thought Arizona was becoming too restrictive with its gun laws. The Arizona Republic has more about Kostric and his ties to militias and anti-government groups.

Of course, there's plenty of debate about this and naturally, the predictable arguments fell along partisan lines. But forget the debate because both sides are full of B-S. Frankly, as I'm concerned, anybody who goes out to protest against the President of the United States, calling for the blood of tyrants to be spilled while carrying a gun, legal or not, is just asking for and probably deserving of trouble. Besides there's a much more interesting question, here, and one that few will be honest enough to answer forthrightly:

What if Kostric were a Muslim and the president had been George Bush?

How would the conservative blogosphere have reacted? How would the media have treated his presence? If he were a Muslim and not some member of a "far-right group," how many conservative bloggers or their readers would be defending his Second Amendment rights?

If we could see such a parallel universe, the odds are near certain these people would be made out as lying hypocrites who have no interest in anything other than defending their partisan agenda. The left no doubt would like to maintain they'd be consistent in their argument regardless of which president or what religion because, you know, they use facts and rational thinking! I'm not so sure. Are there liberal bloggers or readers of such blogs defending the man's right to carry since he broke no laws? But if he were a Muslim, and it was George Bush, the right wing echo machine would be in complete red siren, total outrage mode, because that guy would have to be a Nazi!

I am sure they define/interpret those founding principles for everyone else in their own little insane image.

This isn't just one going out there as a lone gunman at the OK Corral calling the Sheriff out. And the latest ones aren't just copy cats. These guys are the fringe 'real' Americans who probably think Sarah Palin is a sell-out liberal.

And I bet their numbers swell because of this. Timothy McVeigh would love these guys.

I worry about the 'Lone Wolf' with the weapon you can't see.

and there are likely a couple of undercover Secret Service within arm's reach.

If it's a potentially dangerous group, you can be sure it has been infiltrated.

He's playing to his audience: Getting points from his fellow terrorists and terrifying the tree-huggers.

You think it is more likely that a gun owner carried an unloaded gun than a loaded one?

Why? For who's benefit? He can play to his audience by having the weapon loaded too.

He would just probably kill or wound his fellow Morans.

I call bullshit .

I don't know a single person who ever carries an unloaded firearm.

Even among freepers he would be considered the highest level of poser to carry a weapon unloaded.

I go to the shooting range regularly and the majority of the range is right wing.
Many even support the militant open carry everywhere concept. Never have I heard anyone say "yeah and I open carried into Ruby Tuesdays last weak, unloaded of course".

The only thing more stupid than open carrying to a protest would be open carrying an unloaded "weapon".

It's just a provocation.

that statement on.

Opposite your desire for a certain scenario lies the more tangible evidence of the man's own statements.

Additionally, there is nothing that would suggest a person stupid/insane enough to bring a gun to a presidential event just because it's legal would then chose not to keep that gun loaded, which is also stupid/insane but legal.

for all we know, it could have been an inert toy.

however refute your wishful claim.

it turned out to be street theater. Like I said... Bullshit.

There are lots of people who open carry. Nobody tries to take their gun. I've never heard of it happening, not once.

People "could" put rat poison in food at the convenience store. Does it happen? No.
Fast food workers "could" poison the food they serve. Maybe we should have a background check and mental test for anybody to work in fast food. Does anybody actually put poison in the food? No.

A lone lunatick "could" crash his car into the presidential event killing lots of people including the president.Maybe we should stop all vehicles for 2 miles around the president.
Does anybody actually try the car thing? No.

A McVeigh type "could" drive a truck full of explosives right into the event and kill everybody. maybe should put giant concrete barriers all around the president, just in case.

Indeed if he was a Muslim he would have been detained and sent to git mo.

I don't know if anyone watched the daily show last night but the guest was comedian David Cross. John and him had a great ole' time making fun of these gun toting libertarians and their fusing of the 1st and 2nd constitutional rights. Check it out if you haven't already

compared to where they'd be going. Something doesn't pass the smell test here. Someone's getting paid to do this.

there were problems with wearing a tee shirt with an unacceptable logo. Now, things have changed.

Any well armed minority can theoretically hijack everything, provoke insurrection, burn down the electoral process.

I don't suffer fools gladly. That goes especially for you gun lovers.

to get way-too-easy access to the President? I don't care who the President is, I don't like the rsik this presents to national security, not at all.

Just as guns embolden crime, indulging their gratuitous display emboldens more of the same pea-brained peacockery.

If that spot is too close to the president, for people to do exactly what they do on other days, then move the yellow tape back a few hundred feet.

I saw a guy with a sidearm and an AR-15 on a sling over his back in a public place. If this guy does this every day, I'd be amazed.

He did this for one reason, and one reason only: To show off and to intimidate. He's a moron of the first water.

And that's exactly what they are: stunts. I'm not limiting the discussion to the guy in New Hampshire. I'm discussing the trend. So, how often do you see someone with a handgun and an AR-15 hanging around in public places other than ranges? It's a relevant question.

I rarely carry, though. My life doesn't lead me into dangerous places.

I can tell you one place I wouldn't carry, and that would be a Presidential town meeting or the surrounding area. Plenty of armed people there to prevent violence. Defense against violence is the ONLY reason that carrying makes sense.

Openly carrying like what's being done by these anti-Obama morons is nothing more than showboating. It's a worthless exercise and one that's bound to backfire on them. It's a self-defeating insistence on rights which are not even needed in those circumstances.

You can do whatever you wish, within the law. It doesn't matter to me. I will continue to call these showboaters morons.

Well, that's all I need to hear. That says it all.
Why don't you stay home if you are going to someplace you are going to shoot somebody. Do you really need to go someplace dangerous that badly? Is it worth another life so you can stroll through the bad part of town with your gun?
You don't need to have a gun at all. What you need to do is stop going to places so you can have an opportunity to shoot somebody and call it justified.

When you need your gun it will be in the sock drawer back at your house. You should really consider just forgetting the gun altogether.
I'll bet you don't bother to buy birth control unless you need it, too.

I'll continue to carry my gun the same way I carry my fire insurance. What I don't do is go get a fire insurance policy just before I fire up the barb-q grill in the living room.

carefully, if at all. My life almost never takes me to places that might be dangerous. So, I almost never carry. I can think of about three times in the past five years when I went out armed.

I'm not quite sure where your animosity towards me comes from, but, hey, it's your option.

You appear to have me confused with someone else, though.

Taking a weapon to a political rally is one of those things. Our political process isn't founded on guns but on free speech and free elections.

The STATE MOTTO was his motivation for moving there? Lame.

Before the motto made it to license plates, the primary and the Union Leader drew em here, like flies on bad meat. Plus we grow at least the normal proportion of morans...

he probably would have been taken out of the country and tortured the next day

"resistance...against unconstitutional or illegal behavior by government officials" does that mean we are FOR unconstitutional or illegal behavior by government officials? I thought the actions of Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al were frowned upon.