Healthcare Plan Misinformation Video-induced Debate

Remove all ads!

Why is it disturbing, Snook? I wasn't sure if it was the same tape or not. To be honest, the guns looked different to me. But I'm no expert, so I admit I could be wrong, but they looked like different tapes to me. If you want to discuss race, this is funny, Snook:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-11-2009/reform-madness---white-minority

 

See now, I thought the BCG's (birth control glasses) were disturbing. Anyone with glasses that monsterous simply should not try to aim a gun.

 

NOG,
T2 formulated a truism in the Gates thread, along the line that it is unwise to challenge the police because, you know, they have guns (and tasers and batons and pepper spray ... arms to be brief). It is hard to argue with that.

Generally, how does an unarmed citizen argue with an armed citizen? Hardly.

That is illustrated in the case of Republican Party chairman of Boise County, Charles McAffee, who drew a gun on a home owner who approached him because he wondered why he was photographing his house. Six convincing arguments. One of McAffee's supporters asserted: "McAffee brandished the weapon to de-escalate the conflict".

What a genius 'de-escalate' as in intimidate the hell out of the other

Now imagine something that is unthinkable from the side of those so upset about health care, socialism, taxes and Obama or Obama's birth certificate. They pack heat, go to a town hall meeting on health care and then start a discussion with other protesters, in which they then say things unheard of (not) to people that are pro-health care: You support that socialist Obama. You support him even though he isn't even a US citizen! You're a god-damn commie yourself. You support eugenics! Death panels! Fascist! Obama wants ... You want to destroy the (read: my) country! Traitor. The tree of liberty ... If you don't like it, go to Canada ...

The other will be unlikely to confront said provocateur because the 'de-escalation' potential of the other drawing the gun is always there, much more so when the gun is carried overtly. In that case there are no illusions about the capability of the other to 'de-escalate'. I suggest that everybody coming armed to be able to turn a health care debate into 'High Noon' if need arises is not a solution.

 

... Online. Seriously, though, no one was arguing with anyone. And if they were, the police were right there, and they had more guns. And the SS, with even more guns (and probably snipers).

Plus, all in all, I disagree with T2's conclusion. You should show a certain amount of respect and caution around anyone with a gun, but that doesn't mean you should give in to them or co-operate against your better judgement. 15 guys without guns can overpower one guy with a gun in most settings.

Yeah, that guy was an idiot. And deserved to be arrested. I'm not sure what your point is, though.

Ragusa, that's a straw-man and you know it. The fact is, the people coming to the town hall meetings with guns are being arrested, and with good cause. They've crossed the line and broken the law.

Now, if you want to talk about the validity of bringing weapons to a debate as a whole, then that's another issue, and there's a lot more to it than just guns. There are all kinds of tools in politics specifically intended to stifle productive debate.

 

... it doesn't come to your mind that guns might just be one of them?

Two things:

First, why do you think the Republicans found it expedient to add the gun control issue to the health care debate, now? The gun control issue in the US is more or less intractable, with the gun rights advocates recently having been strengthened by the expiration of the assault weapon ban and the striking down of Washington D.C.'s weapons ban. That said, the pro gun crowd isn't exactly on the defensive here. This is a war of choice, so to say. Maybe the first gun carrier at a town hall event was an accident, but recent statements by Republican politicians suggest quite strongly that the Republicans chose to incorporate the gun angle into their approach to the health care debate. Now again, why would they do that?

Hint: As the death panel nonsense illustrates, the anti-healthcare crowd hasn't exactly been strong on substance. But they have been very forceful in voicing whatever inanity happened to spook their minds. This is all about forcefulness and stirring the pot. It's all about wedge issues again. Oh and I'll tell you something, the next thing the GOPers will incorporate into the healthcare debate is the (other intractable traditional GOP wedge) issue of abortion. I expect them to rally to something along that line:

Health care will fund abortions! No taxpayer money to fund the murder of babies! ​

Just imagine the mayhem the pro-lifers will bring to the town hall meetings, and the outrage potential of the issue (i.e. Scott Roeder, in a way, closing the circle to guns).

Second, as for the guns at the town hall meetings itself: The point I wanted to make is that, as guns can be used to quell debate (as, and how, the episode nicely illustrates), their mere presence can very easily have an equivalent effect. Do you deny that? Do you deem that desirable?

 

Well, I was actually thinking more of the rhetorical devices, such as strawmen, belittling your opponent, presenting hypothetical situations that will never happen, etc. I think in the modern day, bringing in guns is more likely to loose you the debate than win it.

Guns were already an issue, just a back-burner one. Remember, there have been concerns about Obama's stance on guns since he announced his intent to run (well grounded or not). They've been moving back and forth in the right-wing circuit ever since. I wasn't surprised to see them rise again.

That rally call was already issued, and it succeeded in shooting down the plans in both bills that did fund abortions. Those ones went down quickly and without a fight, and so didn't make nearly as much news as the 'death pannels'. There's still a little fight on the issue, such as provisions to guarantee that abortions are payed for, but with private money instead of state (where will the money come from, etc), but it's mostly dead.

 

Sufficient competition in the current private health care market?

Interesting article:

 

That's because there was a slight possibility of government funding of some abortions; the death panel "issue" made so much news because of how idiotic and childish the charges were. The Democrats will probably not have much trouble removing the end-of-life counceling, because there was generally heavy Republican support for the idea in the first place (they did basically a 180 on it). Hardcore reformers, like myself, never really cared about that issue in the first place, as long as I can keep the Republicans from getting into my family and doctor's business.

 

Ragusa, there isn't nearly enough competition right now, but the proposed exchange plan wouldn't actually help that any. As the plans stand now, the exchanges are state-based and state-limited, meaning that you would be required by law to buy a plan from your state (exactly what they started complaining about) if you wanted anything. At least at the moment, any national health insurance company could offer a plan in any state they want (provided it meets the often complicated and dysfunctional state-by-state restrictions). I would support this plan a lot more if it was a national exchange instead of a state-based one. I'd also support it if it cut it's regulations about in half (and cut the right half instead of the wrong half).

 

In all the talks about guns at the rallies, it makes me wonder about this...

- Why can't we bring a gun into a court room but can carry at a townhall meeting... ??? Both are stages/forums that can affect how laws and policies are created and changed here in the US. Is it the "officialyness" or sanctity of the courtroom?

 

Blades, you can't carry one at a town hall meeting. The people we're talking to brought them to protests outside the town hall meetings. The few people who have brought them actually into the town hall meetings have been arrested, and rightly so.

 

NOG,
when there is a trial in the courthouse, and people stand in front of the house holding signs about the accused, like that he is a murderer and deserves death - while packing heat ... they will be removed just because of the obvious spectre of vigilantism.

It is no leap from there to signs that say 'No to Obama's Healthcare!', 'Health Care is Tyranny!', 'Obama is a tyrant' and 'Death to tyrants'. These signs, as seen in front of the town halls, form a syllogism that leads to an obvious conclusion. That conclusion, backed up by arms carried, implies pretty much the same threat of vigilantism as posed by the armed protesters in front of a court house.

Indeed, there is little difference.

 

sorry NOG, let me clarify that what I meant was at rallies of the town hall meetings, not necessarily inside. In the end, if your outside holding the sign or inside yelling at the State Rep, it amounts to about the same thing and gets the same point across to your opposition.

 

No, Ragusa. People standing in front of the courthouse holding signs and packing heat will not be removed (at least in the US) because the trial is inside. Now, if they violate a safety perimeter around the route of the prisoner, they should (and often will) be removed. Likewise if they try to enter the courthouse with the guns. There are plenty of protests in front of courthouses though, and I'd bet quite a few of them involve guns.

Yes, but having a gun in one and having a gun in the other are two totally different events. It comes down to opportunity. If you're 5 feet from the stage the politician is standing on, you have a real chance to kill him with a gun. If you're 1000 feet from the bullet-proof car he's going to be driving up in, there's not much you can really do but make a scene.

 

Only if the gun carrier is looking to shoot the Rep and not his followers/backers. You don't need to get within 5 feet of the Rep to kill the others...

 

BoV,
which won't happen. The guys who bring guns before town halls and court buildings while crying (the proverbial) bloody murder are all sane, law abiding citizens who have (so far) committed no crime. Per definition, protesters are not aroused and have no grievance that may manifest itself in violent acts, and the possibility of violent acts of armed protesters - that's a risk to be taken in order to not infringe on the constitutional rights to 'pack heat'.

After all, assassinations are a thing unheard of in the US, why it is totally malign to suspect armed people actually having practical reasons for being armed. It's not any different than gays donning on a rainbow t-shirt, or leather ware ... Being armed is merely an innocent, cheerful display of joy, or protest, or ambivalence, like that growling my little pit-bulls Mauler and Vicious often do around others - the little buggers are just playing, and don't need a leash or a muzzle (trust me - they've never bitten me!). The right to bear arms is so fundamental that it is worth the sacrifice of ... whoever, after all the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. The price for freedom is all the more worth it if paid for by someone else. The bad apples are the only the ones who want to bring the guns inside, because, and everybody knows that, murders only happen outside, on open streets. So, there's no risk, and everything else is just dandy.

And there is no reason to reconsider lest bodies pile up, providing us with a solid body of (as) evidence to reassess whether we, sadly, erred too much on the side of the right to bear arms. Who could have foreseen something like that? It's a tragedy that then a few bad apples will have given coming armed to protest - a cherished tradition as American as apple pie - a bad name, which now, sadly and inexplicably, had to lead to the irrational and paranoid precautionary measure to not allow coming armed to protests at all. What a lamentable loss of freedom! And don't even get me started on the excesses that eventually gave lynching a bad name ...

That was also so when they banned dynamite fishing. Only when cousin Bubba accidentally blew up a pleasure boat with a school class that very effective and constitutional (I'm a strict constructionist - there is no ban on dynamite fishing in the constitution!) hunting practice was banned altogether. A shame. Who are authorities to tell citizens how to hunt or fish? (let alone protest)

 

Ragusa, straw-men + sarcasm really doesn't become you. Or the discussion for that matter.

I never said the guys were 100% child-safe. I did say, however, that they're legal and that, from 1000 feet away, don't pose a serious threat. Let's face it, if someone want's to kill Obama, taking a 9mm to a protest really isn't the way to go.

Incidentally, I seem to recall it was you, in the Gates debate, that was arguing about not acting on potential threats. My, how times change.

 

NOG: Ragusa doesn't appearantly support the right to bear arms...just the other rights obtained by the right to bear arms....

 

Ragusa - You really have to live here to understand this gun business. To the rest of the western world it must seem strange to see grown men just walking around in a crowd of people with guns for no apparent reason. I understand that your country probably has the same rights that we have, but America is a violent place, so the guns come out. In many ways, it's really a good thing that an average citizen can arm himself, cause don't count on too much help from the police, as we've seen over and over again.

The right to own a gun is an important individual right. The danger is the breakdown of the Rule of Law, which is the REAL crux of our freedoms. But how much "freedom" do you really have if you have to keep yourself armed, and you just about have to sleep with a gun, just to feel safe?

I saw this very funny read on Salon after I posted:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/26/2011/index.html?source=rss&aim=/news/feature

This one was great: