About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Buchanan says it's "very offensive" to bring guns to public meetings

August 21, 2009 6:55 pm ET

From the August 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by smarshall1432997 (August 21, 2009 7:02 pm ET)
      7  
      Pappa Pat taught Joe Scarborough well, huh? Never, ever, ever say Republicans did wrong without sharing the blame with Democrats. LOL
      Report Abuse
      • Author by cuardai (August 21, 2009 7:04 pm ET)
        3  
        Absolutely true!
        Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (August 22, 2009 3:13 am ET)
        1  
        Buchanan says it's "very offensive" to bring guns to public meetings

        Finally...

        Something me and the old bastard can agree on!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bluhawk7398 (August 21, 2009 7:03 pm ET)
      1 8
      Knowing the publics conditioned response to fear guns and gunowners, the choice to wear a gun to a meeting, while perfectly legal in most cases, is a questionable choice only... hardly offensive though...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by sbreader (August 21, 2009 7:17 pm ET)
        7  
        I believe you when you say it's not offensive to you, bluhawk. But as a pro-Democracy citizen I'm extremely offended. It's anti-Democratic; it's intimidation; and it's gaming the system. If they feel safe they needn't bring a weapon. If they don't feel safe they can stand near a policeman or not go. If they just came from the shooting range they can stop by their home first and drop off the weapon. People who take advantage just because they can, like these gun-toters or welfare cheats or tax cheats, offend me greatly.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bluhawk7398 (August 22, 2009 12:15 pm ET)
             
          You list points against carrying,(I wouldn't personally anyway)I'm curious if you could explain please....1) How is it anti-democratic? 2) How is it any more intimidation than the New Black Panthers wearing their uniforms/carrying sticks and standing outside polling places?--Keep in mind that no one was brandishing their guns or allowed into townhalls with firearms, and the court case was recently dropped against the NBP. Finally how exactly is it gaming the system? Also as far as safety, you would probably be more likely to be hit be a car driven by someone texting/talking on their phone than to be killed by someone with a gun...
          Report Abuse
      • Author by dmhack (August 21, 2009 7:18 pm ET)
        6  
        I'd guess it could also turn out to be a deadly choice should one of those gun owners make the wrong move.

        The Secret Service, from the agents in the crowd to the snipers above the crowd, has its own set of conditioned responses.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by heru (August 21, 2009 7:27 pm ET)
        7  
        hey bluhawk you better hope blue cross doesnt consider your stupidity a pre-existing condition
        Report Abuse
        • Author by haywood jabuzoff (August 21, 2009 9:06 pm ET)
          1  
          "hey bluhawk you better hope blue cross doesnt consider your stupidity a pre-existing condition"


          Your post is so properly dripping in sarcasm that I must applaud you in text.

          Well done!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by haywood jabuzoff (August 21, 2009 9:10 pm ET)
             
          Btw (if it's all the same to you)I might steal that line.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by rjw.walker5519 (August 21, 2009 9:13 pm ET)
             
          I disagree with bluhawk's expressed view, but I strongly object to your attack calling him stupid.

          In my experience, there are idiots on the right, there are idiots on the left, but bluhawk's message doesn't put him in with either of those groups.


          Report Abuse
        • Author by bluhawk7398 (August 22, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
             
          ...if you live in a glass house....
          Report Abuse
      • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 21, 2009 9:09 pm ET)
        3  
        Most states advise gun permit holders not to carry their gun in public crowded places.In some states it is illegal for gun permit holders to do so.Even though the man with the gun was outside,it was legally a public crowded place because of the president's visit.Even if it was legal for the man to display his gun in public,it disturbed,scared and offended a large number of people.Therefore he was a publc nussiance that made people feel unsafe,and the police on the local level should have taken care of it.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (August 21, 2009 11:15 pm ET)
        4 1
        Bluhawk, I own more than one gun, I don't fear me or my guns. I'm a pretty sane person, the type that wouldn't ever feel paranoid or insecure enough to bring any weapons to a political rally.

        It's not simply gun owners that might make people a little nervous. It's the type of quivering, frightened, unstable half-wits who have been showing up at these town halls screaming like lunatics about socialism and Jesus-- those people with guns should have anyone concerned, unless you're as bonkers as they are.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Nelia (August 22, 2009 5:15 am ET)
             
          Sorry, Colonel: Gunowners do make me nervous. You can argue that you do not care, but do not state that everybody is fine with the "right to arms." Overt or covert, guns need to be better controlled. This is 2009.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 22, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
          2  
          I would carry a rifle with me in a crowded public place for all to see. But, luckily, I was born with a normal-sized penis.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (August 22, 2009 2:22 pm ET)
            2  
            Bill Maher asked last night if the gun-lovers' reaction would be the same if the AR-15 toting idiot was an Arab-looking guy dressed in traditional Muslim garb.

            I'm betting the answer would be no.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 22, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
              2  
              No kidding. I am sure you have seen all the wild accusations that have flown around this site by "fair"-liberal and her ilk because there were allegedly Black Panter party members with sticks hanging out somewhere - near polling places I believe. Black Panthers with sticks scary and intimidating, right-wing nuts with rifles nothing to be afraid of.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (August 22, 2009 5:32 pm ET)
                2  
                Excactly.

                And...

                That Black Panther canard was ONE PHOTOGRAPH. That's it. They were forced by law enforcement to leave RIGHT AWAY and yet it's trotted out repeatedly as another ACORN-based left-wing plot to deny the white race the right to vote in safety.

                Report Abuse
      • Author by WorldViewer (August 22, 2009 2:23 am ET)
        2  
        BluHawk7398... Please answer my question separately from those that precede it (not casting aspersions on those questions at all).

        Forget about the town hall meetings involving "run of the mill" Congressmen & Women or Senators. Think of the town hall meetings where the President is present.

        Do you agree or disagree with me that bringing and brandishing the weapons in the manner that we've seen at THOSE town halls is beyond a questionable choice? Forget offensive, I'm not interested in that. Forget legal, if it is technically legal to do as they have done.

        Do you not think that the people showing up armed (concealed, or [worse?] not) to a PRESIDENTIAL town hall meeting are going beyond the pale?

        Please answer that question, leaving aside (but not forgetting) the fact that the Secret Service, in order to do its job, obviously MUST pay close attention to the people publicly wearing guns (who are doing so for reasons related to "protest" or whatever), which necessitates a diversion of full attention to any serious threats?

        I'm hoping for an intelligent, unemotional response, so that I can proceed in kind.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bluhawk7398 (August 22, 2009 11:57 am ET)
             
          Again, I believe if legality is not a question, then in the current political climate it is a questionable decision only...I do ask you(politely of course) why it should bother anyone if legality is not in question? No one that I saw was brandishing(I like like your choice of inflammatory words) any guns and of course no firearms or weapons would be allowed inside a certain perimeter to the VIP in town hall....so again, it shows how media will hype certain images to help their story, in this case, crazy gun-toting righties, correct? And the buzz my original post has created confirms that the media has created a climate of fear associated(unreasonably so) with guns and gunowners....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by dr. matt (August 22, 2009 2:43 pm ET)
               
            No, the media hasn't created the "climate a fear"....a bunch of anti-American, gun-toting, inbred hicks carrying weapons to presidential events has. I don't fear guns or gun-owners...I fear you inbred kkkonservative hicks are stupid enough to use weapons against Americans because of your perverse and sick ideology.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by bluhawk7398 (August 22, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
                 
              Call me crazy but if I remember correctly, one of your "inbred kkkonservative hicks" was a black man....remember to go with facts please...they rate higher than less-than juvenile verbal regurgitations....
              Report Abuse
              • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 22, 2009 7:20 pm ET)
                   
                Black man displaying assualt rifle near place where president or congressman speaking,and not thrown in jail,and all his rights violated.I believe you lie if not provide proff.If you are talking about the black man gaming white conservatives while selling them trinkets and stuff.The one who was trying to raise money to pay his health insurance,while saying keep the price high so he can not afford it.No guns were involved there.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 22, 2009 7:34 pm ET)
                     
                  I was wrong there was a black man in Arizona,and local police asked him to move away from the area which he did
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 22, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
            2  
            "the media has created a climate of fear associated(unreasonably so) with guns and gunowners"

            Oh, please. Who do you think are the ones showing themselves to be afraid? Not the ones carrying rifles around in a crowded public place? If carrying a rifle around to make yourself feel safe doesn't spell fear, I don't know what does.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by WorldViewer (August 23, 2009 8:16 am ET)
               
            I don't agree with you that my use of the term "brandishing" was inflammatory. I certainly didn't mean it to be. I thought it was a relatively non-offensive verb form.

            But you ask why it should bother anyone if legality is not question. Do you mean to imply (I'm just asking here) that because something is legal, the legal exercise of that right, no matter what shape it takes, should not be questioned? (Obviously making an extreme, hyperbolic scenario here): A citizen might not only claim, at a town hall, that Obama/Bush/Harding/Fillmore/takeyourpick enjoys sex with chickens, but that his enjoyment of said bestiality is predicated upon the chicken wearing a beret. That would be legal...but would it be, as I stated earlier, beyond the pale?

            And my post didn't address the media or the media's portrayal of these people toting guns publicly at presidential town hall meetings. I'm not sure, but I think that in your post, you implied that you agree that no firearms or weapons would be allowed inside a certain perimeter to the VIP in town hall. So, I'm curious, what is your personal explanation for why these people CHOSe to brandish (display, show, etc.) their weapons in such a fashion? The 2nd amendment? At a healthcare debate, why was this necessary, if it was?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by WorldViewer (August 23, 2009 8:18 am ET)
                 
              lol Random question (read my above post to see the context)

              Why is bestiality spelled as, well bestiality?
              Shouldn't it be "beastiality"?

              Why the dropping of the first "a"?

              Again, random question.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by bluhawk7398 (August 23, 2009 11:21 am ET)
                 
              To start with, if I did not take you to task for using the term "brandishing", less than informed souls out there would believe that folks were waving guns around in the air, which of course did not happen. That is why some verbs to describe imagery need to be challenged.
              I still think that the legality trumps visual offensiveness. Again it is a choice I would not have made personally since I know most people associate guns with mayhem and aggressive/violent people which is not neccessarily so...that is why I don't think the open-carry of weapons should be considered offensive....(I'm hopeful that everyone would be visually offended with some yo-yo engaging with a chicken, regardless of its wearing a beret or not)
              As for why these people chose to wear weapons to town-hall? I have no idea...2nd amendment statists choose a less politically muddy field, so I'm not sure what the thought process was...since it is not something I would have done,knowing that it would have created tenseness where there need be no more added. Quite possibly they knew they would get their 15 seconds if they were carrying...
              Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (August 22, 2009 9:20 am ET)
           
        Knowing the publics conditioned response to fear guns and gunowners, the choice to wear a gun to a meeting, while perfectly legal in most cases, is a questionable choice only... hardly offensive though...
        If there's no question regarding legality, the questionable aspect of it would seem to apply to the propriety. You're basically saying that there's a question as to whether it can be considered offensive or not, but it's "hardly" offensive at the same time.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bluhawk7398 (August 22, 2009 12:06 pm ET)
             
          Sorry, I wrote that post keeping in mind the choices I would have made as well as the legality involved. While it would obviously be offensive to some to see someone carrying at a townhall it is still a matter of choice vs. propriety barring the legality... I personally would not carry since I understand the conditioned responses I spoke of earlier....but I also think that someone going on national news to say it is offensive is a little over the top....
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (August 22, 2009 12:37 pm ET)
               
            It's a strange distinction here, still. You understand how it would obviously be offensive, but someone saying it's offensive is over the top. It's a subjective matter, so that's his opinion. You may disagree with it, but I don't see how he crossed any lines in expressing it.

            I'm not sure how the aspect of "choice" says anything here. You can talk about your sex life during a church sermon, and that's your choice, but it's still not appropriate.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 22, 2009 1:53 pm ET)
              1  
              I find it offensive, although I do not find gun ownership offensive. I have to say when I see someone who feels the need to carry a gun around for all to see in order to feel safe or secure or superior or whatever my conditioned response is to think "What a wuss".
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (August 22, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
                   
                Of course, I hope I didn't imply that ownership itself is offensive. We're actually considering getting one for our home, since we live out in the country.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by mikehuck1976 (August 22, 2009 3:41 pm ET)
                  1  
                  I didn't mean to infer that you were against gun ownership. I have always had a gun in my home. I have no problem with others keeping guns in their homes.

                  But, let's be real about it - they carry a gun around in public for all to see not for safety but because they have an inferiority complex. Or a small penis complex. I don't know who they think they are protecting by strapping a rifle around their shoulder and walking around other than their own weak self-image.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by bluhawk7398 (August 22, 2009 4:46 pm ET)
                      1
                    People who carry firearms in public may be restricted by local ordinance from carrying concealed weapons while open-carry is unrestricted. Your tactic of attempting ,rather poorly I might add, to attack the image of gunowners as mentally weak or more deragatory insinuations has been overplayed and lands you squarely in the trashbin of opinion...my advice is make your point minus the low-brow attempts at humor, or whatever you call it....
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (August 22, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
                      2  
                      attack the image of gunowners as mentally weak or more deragatory insinuations has been overplayed and lands you squarely in the trashbin of opinion

                      Not all gunowners. Just the ones who think everyone should be armed and allowed to parade around in public with them like the entire country has turned into one big Dodge City. Just the ones who think that we should arm our college students/professors.

                      The ones who do feel the need to walk around in public with their weapon are either scared or are compensating for their lack of...shall we say...manhood.
                      Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (August 21, 2009 8:16 pm ET)
      1  
      Pat Bucanan is old school,break the law when you need to,deny it,know a little about what you are talking about,even when you know you're wrong,respect law and order,support labor unions and fair wages for working people,so they can afford a gun.Form Pat Bucanan's view,the clowns who are imitations of imitations,whose side he is supposed to be on,really don't have a clue.There is noway old school hateful conservatives would have looked stupid carrying a gun to a speech by any elected official,way off topic talking about gun rights.If they publicly displayed carrying guns to threaten people or whatever,at least 100 of them would have had the guts to carry guns.One lone dummy with a gun to a speech by the president.Even old school would not have had any objection to throwing this fool in a sack and dragging his butt to jail,And charging him with every law he violated,starting with disturbing the peace.It is very disturbing to the peace to see a fool at or near a speech by the president displaying a gun.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (August 21, 2009 9:06 pm ET)
      1  
      Buchanan says it's "very offensive" to bring guns to public meetings
      And I say it's very offensive for Buchanan to bring his bigotry and ignorance to a national television program.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by WorldViewer (August 22, 2009 2:28 am ET)
           
        Perhaps true, and I'm not attacking, but if this particular soundbite is focused on something that we agree with, I prefer to simply concur (not blindly) and leave the complaints against Buchanan for the innumerable other reports of his obviously P.T. Barnum - worthy behavior.

        P.S. I wasn't sure how to punctuate the hyphen between "Barnum" and "worthy", given that "Barnum" itself didn't fill the function of the full "noun". Can anyone suggest something better, or was that the best that could be done? (lol leaving aside the fact that the whole sentence could have been phrased with better grammar)
        Report Abuse
    • Author by chamay0 (August 22, 2009 9:05 am ET)
         
      Yes from the lips of he who is never wrong, comes the usual garbage. Its offensive to bring guns, but those people are terribly upset...hmmm, sounds like Pat is justifying why people are bringing guns.

      Where was all that repressed anger when Bush was busy destroying the country? Oh, I forgot, God told Bush to do it so that made it all good and acceptable.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by whillenbrand (August 22, 2009 9:18 am ET)
      1  
      Why does one NEED to bring a gun to a town hall meeting?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (August 22, 2009 2:24 pm ET)
           
        You never know when one of those "Black" helicopters might show up to give you a chance to be a "media" hero.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (August 23, 2009 5:17 pm ET)
         
      Offensive to bring guns to a public meeting . . . Gee, Pat, ya think?
      Report Abuse