Secret Service 'Aware Of' Gun-Toter And Pastor's Prayers For Obama To Die

Asked about pastor Steven Anderson and gun-toter Chris Broughton's repeated wishes for President Barack Obama to die, Special Agent Darrin Blackford of the Secret Service sends along this statement:

"We are aware of the situation and appropriate follow up will be conducted."

Broughton is the member of Anderson's Faithful Word Baptist Church who brought an AR-15 rifle and a hand gun to an Obama event in Phoenix earlier this month. Anderson later confirmed to TPMmuckraker that just 24 hours before that show of arms-bearing, Broughton attended the pastor's fiery sermon in which he prayed for "Obama to melt like a snail tonight" for being a "socialist devil, murderer, infanticide."

And yesterday, Broughton and Anderson took their statements even further, with the pastor saying he'd like Obama to die of brain cancer like Ted Kennedy, and Broughton for the first time publicly saying that he, too, would like the president to be dead.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/secret_service_aware_of_gun-toter_and_pastors_pray.php

The violent anti-Obama sentiment coming out of central Arizona managed to get still more toxic over the weekend.

Chris Broughton, the man who brought an AR-15 rifle and a handgun to an Arizona Obama rally earlier this month, says he "concurs" with his fundamentalist pastor's prayer for President Obama "to die and go to hell."

And in an interview with a local TV station, pastor Steven Anderson himself elaborated on his statement to TPMmuckraker that he would prefer Obama to die of natural causes so "he's not some martyr."

"I don't want him to be a martyr, we don't need another holiday. I'd like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer," Anderson now says.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/gun_toter_i_like_my_pastor_want_obama_to_die.php?ref=fpa

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

pretty sure that has been done before.

that their certainly it would only be used against "terrorists" was delusional.

What idiots. As much as I detested Bush and thought he was not legitimately our president, I never once thought that he should die. I definitely wished for his arrest and conviction for the crimes he allowed and participated in during his administration, but not once did I wish bodily harm on him. I hope the Secret Service can find enough information on these idiots for a prosecution.

A "visit" is when a buddy comes over to your house to watch the football game. The Secret Service needs to haul this asshole out of his house in handcuffs and ship him off to the Supermax in Colorado.

Unlike the Bush administration, the Obama administration is trying to restore the rule of law and the rule of reason. I understand that when emotions are raised there is a desire to retaliate. However, there needs to be an investigation to see if there is evidence on which these guys can be "hauled off" to the Supermax. If indeed there is, then by all means haul away. If the government goes in and hauls people in for skating on thin ice around free speech, then we give the crazies legitimacy.

are proud of him, and the many thousands of similar "good christians" who have put our nation in the condition is it now in.

mark

there were many who supported the gun-toter. Many.

We just didn't want his rights or everyone's rights (Especially the 2nd) crushed in a fear-induced frenzy.

Let's see, if Person A prays for Person B's painful demise, and Person C (who believes fervently in Person A's "gospel") arrives in the presence of Person B armed with a rifle, who do you suppose is the bigger threat to Person B?

But let us not be frenzied or fearful: It's just a Holy Relic of the High Church of Redemptive Violence, and there's nothing to suggest that any criminal action will definitely take place. Although if it does, whoo-whee! it'll be a doozy! But is that any reason to take a pre-emptive action?

1) Person C was never "in the presence of Person B" to do that he would either need to be inside the security bubble or the secret Service totally screwed up at their job.

2) Person C doesn't necessarily take ANYTHING Person A says as "gospel". Gospel is the word of God and in many Christian sects a Preacher can't speak for God. The Preacher asking God to "smite" Obama carries no more weight than you asking God to give you a billion dollars.

I'd say someone within range of the rifle qualifies as being in their presence.

As for the word "gospel" which I deliberately put into quotation marks, pertained in this instance to Person A's "good news", which was the subject of their preaching. It's sort of a allusional, metaphorical thing; unsurprising that not everyone would get it, but a bit surprising that someone would take the trouble to post in such detail that he or she doesn't get it.

But thank you for your concern.

Max range on a .308 Winchester is about half a mile. So everything within a one mile diameter should be gun free?

One out of 3 homes has a firearm. Want to guess how many homes are within one mile? How many cars? How many people lawful carrying weapons totally unrelated to the Presidential event.

Of course that doesn't even get into the Constitutional issues.

The govt can't infringe or restrict just because they "can", but rather because they "must" and only as narrowly as possible, using the least restrictive means possible.

Of course you were aware of Strict Scrutiny right:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

You were aware that just having a compelling interest (protecting the President) isn't sufficient to restrict a right. The govt must also show that the method was as narrowly tailored as possible and the least restrictive means to accomplish the compelling interest.

Of course you also put 2 + 2 together and realized that if you limit firearms to the line of sight to the President you are protecting a govt interest, using a method tailored as narrowly as possible and using the least restrictive means.

Thus banning weapons that are in a position to bring harm to the President = Constitutional.
Banning all weapons (even those incapable of harming the President) in a mile wide diameter = Unconstitutional.

While Mr. Broughton is apparently bright enough not to make a direct threat with his rifle-toting appearance, he's not bright enough to say that he definitely wouldn't take a pot shot at the president if the opportunity presented itself. In the name of God, and all that:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/gun_toter_i_like_my_pastor_want_obama_to_die.php?ref=fpa



Yeah, nothing to worry about from this guy. Keeping an eye on him is probably sufficient. No sense doing anything out of fear. After all, we're talking about holy relics here from an incomplete reading and understanding of a constitutional amendment.

"an incomplete reading and understanding of a constitutional amendment"


Care to elaborate on that?

though that's not the same as effective range. Effective range would be the roughly-half-mile figure.

http://www.jbmballistics.com/~jbm/cgi-bin/jbmdist-5.0.cgi

Still waitin' on the diety to lay that cash on me...I gave enough to him when I was in catholic school, hope he invested it wisely.

mark

my afterlife....

mark

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2009/08/my_chat_with_steven_anderson_c.php

I also posted more later in this thread.

the area where the POTUS is about to make an appearance. Obviously, he was not vetted in advance, but appears to be a threat to the POTUS.

Sometimes the need to protect the POTUS outweighs the right of nutcases to carry firearms in his near vicinity. Never before this President was in office would someone have been allowed to do that. Nothing of the sort would have been allowed during Bush's presidency, I can assure you.

Stubborn insistence that individual rights to be armed outweigh all other considerations is stupid, and may lead to consequences that will restrict the rights of ALL firearms owners, not just these nutcases.

Be sensible. You're not preaching to the choir in this discussion as you do in the gungeon. If you do not make sense, you'll get called on that. Many DUers who own firearms do not regularly participate in gungeon discussions, but when the folly that is the currency there leaks out into GD, you'll hear from us.

I do not want the nutcase 2nd Amendment folks to interfere with my rights by insisting on irrational priviledge.

Secret Service DOES ban firearms in the area where the President makes an appearance. Had he attempted to bring a weapon past the security checkpoint he would be in jail or dead right now.

They DON'T ban weapons outside the area because that is not a threat to the President.

I give up. Just don't be surprised when this all backfires and the restrictions get even stronger. I'm fed up with the all-or-nothing 2nd Amendment rights people. They're now working to force even stronger restrictions by insisting that nutcases bearing arms are fine at public gatherings.

You will reap what you sow, and you'll end up costing me my rights. No thank you very much.

I'm also a firearms owner, with a CCW, and I would not, under any circumstances, carry in a situation like the one at that protest. Not a chance. Things are volatile enough already.

I won't argue with you in the gungeon, but I sure will in GD.

1) I think the guy is an idiot but what he did is lawful and I don't see a Constitutional method to stop what he is doing (carrying a block away from the President where President is in no risk of being injured).

2) All or nothing? Wouldn't all or nothing be advocating he should have a weapon in front row of the location where Obama was given a speech.

There are restrictions, those restrictions are Constitutional, those restrictions protected the life of the President. The President sees no need for more restrictions, the Secret Service sees no need for more restrictions.

If hypothetically you extended the gun free zone from what is needed to 200m beyond what is needed guess what will happen at 201m? You got it someone will carry a gun. Someone will be carrying a gun "NEAR" the gun free zone. So should we push it to 500m? Well at 501m someone will carry a gun? 1 kmm? the entire section of the city, the entire city?

You will reap what you sow, and you'll end up costing me my rights. No thank you very much.

So sad that you fear your govt so much.

If your "right" can be taken away arbitrarily by the govt then it never was a right to begin with. Either it is a right or it is a privilege. If you consider the ability to own and carry a firearm a privelidge then you are right the govt could take it away from you since you a subject and the govt gives you permission to do so. If it is a right then the govt has no lawful authority to take it away from you.

And they can be taken away again. You're playing semantic games, and that's a familiar tactic.

I won't play those games with you.

Any govt that takes away rights is tyrannical.
Any tyrannical govt doesn't need an excuse for its actions.
It will find someone or something to blame it on.

If you live in constant fear that the actions of others will cause you to lose your "rights" then I hate to be the bearer of bad news you long ago surrendered those rights for privileges to be issued or revoked by the govt.

I'm a CCW holder and a gun owner but I wouldn't carry to a rally or protest but I'm not going to get on board with outlawing it. I believe it's a slippery slope situation. You ban them in one area, you make it easier to ban in another.

I think the practice of bringing guns will fall off as the shock value wears off. It's political tactic and once they realize it doesn't work, they'll move on.

No greater scam in the history of the world-even politicians have to take a back seat to religion.

mark

for people to speak of my religion in that manner.

I would never be supportive of the person in question.

For Example : I am also African American and I would never say ---"White people hate/hated Black people."

That is just wrong.

I've heard people say they hate Catholics because they don't believe in Abortion ~ wrong again, I know many Catholics that don't agree with that aspect of the church and they are still
drvoted Catholics and take great strength from their faith.

Thank you

Protecting the president is more important than technicalities in the law or the Constitution.

on edit: maybe the guy belongs in jail, but only if doing so would be consistent with the Constitution. The assertion that protecting the president is more important than the Constitution sounds awfully close to the rationale used by chimpy and his gang to subvert the Constitution in the interest of supposedly protecting the American people.

So neither belong in jail.

I glad that Obama and the SS aren't giving to the fear and threats like Shrub would have.

Very rarely does the SS make statements and never do they mention a agents by name. A close friend of mine was a SS agent. He's now retired. We still shoot together.

Darrin Blackford is a spokesman for the Secret Service. He is also a special agent, but in this case he is acting as spokesman.

Vary rare indeed.

www.columbiachronicle.com/paper/arts.php?id=3525

www.csmonitor.com/2007/0920/p14s02-wmgn.html

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17404200&ft=

www.wtop.com/?sid=1636329&nid=25

www.washtimes.com/news/2009/aug/14/town-halls-dr

Just that it's rare to hear of a field agent by name.

-----

We then got down to brass tacks, and he affirmed that he'd like to see President Obama deader than a doorknob.

"It would be good for the country if he were to go sooner than later," said Broughton, no doubt making his ma really proud.

Even if someone kills him, I wondered?

"However it happens, I'm going be happy that it happens," he boasted. "I'm gonna be a happy man...I would rejoice."

Then Broughton removed all doubt that he's an idiot by asserting ye ole Adolf Hitler comparison, a sure sign that you have no argument, or originality. He asked me if it would have been better if somone had taken Hitler out back in the day, suggesting it would be equally cool if Obama got similar treatment.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2009/08/my_chat_with_steven_anderson_c.php

We have them here in NW Arkansas. They used to be KKK, but segued into a "church" which routinely sends out mass mailings using selected and edited Bible passages to back up their message of hate and intolerance.

Do your dam jobs! Fucking wankers.

During the last administration.

I had not heard that...

I thank you in advance...

And I didn't save the link. Sorry.


I'll try searching the web for it.

how they can let someone walk around displaying firearms anywhere close to Obama when people with something as innocuous as signs couldn't come anywhere close to Bush. Did they think people were going to club Bush with the signs?

This really is craziness.

sticks aren't in the second amendment, I guess ?

under state law, as long as you were outside the restricted zone, which was the case here.

These clowns were offsite and staged their own little protest for the cameras and gullible reporters; they were not with the President, though I'm sure they certainly don't mind being thought to have been closer than they actually were. They also didn't seem to mind the media thinking the unloaded rifle was loaded.

the guy in New Hampshire told Chris Matthews his sidearm was loaded.

The RW-orchestrated Official Media Freakout was primary about the ZOMG SCAWWY looking rifle, though, which was in fact unloaded, with an empty magazine inserted.