Don't tread on me . . . Ducks!

And now, my fellow citizens, we see what the ol' knee-jerk effect is in its full bloom and glory.

Our Friend, Jesus, mentioned that ''greater Love no man has than to lay down his life for another''.

He said that.  And those folks who were trying to defend WITH THEIR OWN PERSONS the person of Rand Paul are villified in their honorable actions by one Kevin Clarke WHO DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

You, Mr. Clarke, looked pretty stupid writing what you did.  Naw ... not stupid.  BIASED.

Yeah.  Biased. Pre-Judged. Discriminatory.  That's what you showed, Mr. Clarke.

The apology was very nice.  The ''corrected thinking'' was exemplary.

But that was AFTER the fact Mr. Clarke.  The REAL show will be how you react in print to the NEXT circumstance.

Also, if I may, Jesus also said for us to ''turn the other cheek'', and, I agree with that.  BUT ... as with all things, MODERATION is the key.  When attacked with life-threatening ardor, you've only got ONE chance to turn that cheek.  And it better be to that pistol at your side. 

We have, here in America, lots of freedoms.  One of which is the freedom to be attacked, yes?  We ALSO have the freedom to defend ourselves.  Open-carry, concealed permit, and ownership of CIVILIAN weapons of all types are a few of the more obvious freedoms extant.  MILITARY weapons are forbidden to be sold to non-specially licensed individuals.  Take the time to know the difference, and to identify the weapons you're railing against next time.  You'll come off as a tad bit smarter.

Luther said so, and Luther don't lie.

Personally, I don't believe weapons bans will be any more effective than drug bans.  It's easy to pass some law saying you can't do this or that and then say you did something.  It's another thing to provide an environment that creates jobs, though people differ on how to do that.

As for the jerk in the video, he didn't have to stomp on her head.  If he didn't shoot her, maybe it's because he got a little more aroused with the personal approach to violence.  Reminded me of the incident filmed at a pre-WII Bund rally in NYC.  Maybe history is repeating.  Get a big enough buildup of anger and polarization in this country, and it will.

Wasn't there, don't know, but obviously Rand Paul's protector was not one to turn the other cheek.  How nasty could the moveon.org individual have been to have needed immediate subduing, such that it could not have been left to the police and legal system?  The problem, as I see it, is that some people who strongly support being able to carry guns at all times and in all places have an image of themselves as being entitled to engage in vigilante law enforcement.

Mr. Cosgrove can you please provide support for your statement that this woman attacked Mr. Rand's car? Please explain explain what you mean by "attack." The stories I read did not use the word attack but rather reported that this 23 year old girl was trying to give Mr. Rand an "award" or was trying to get a picture with him when several men took off her wig and wrestled her to the ground. Of course she fought back  - she had no idea what these men were about to do to her!  Individuals running for public office in this country have to expect that they may run into protestors. It is unsettling to think that there are those in this country that defend the kind of aggressive and violent behavior against a 23 year old girl that was exhibited by the Rand Paul supporters.

Mr. Cosgrove can you please provide support for your statement that this woman attacked Mr. Rand's car?''
 
 
Apparently you have not seen all the videos from which Mr. Clarke has cherry picked what he apparently wanted,  The MoveOn woman lunged at the car directly at the car window where Rand Paul was sitting and then was forcibly restrained after this attack as she vigorously resisted the security who restrained her.  There was no difference in her actions if she meant physical harm to Rand Paul.  She was in disguise which should obviously promote suspicion as to her intentions.  If such an episode had been done to the president, she would be in some deep detention center explaining her motives. 
 
 
The real lesson of this episode is that anti Tea Party people tried to provoke a reaction from Tea Party members and she got one from someone who was quickly admonished by the Tea Party members there.  Thus, the real take away from this is how violence free the Tea Party is and how those who are against it have to overtly provoke reactions so they can get press coverage.  This women got exactly what she wanted.  She took aggressive behavior and got aggressive but generally restrained behavior in return.  The inappropriate response by a person in the crowd was quickly admonished.
 
 
 
That Mr. Clarke or anyone else here did not see that is the most telling part of the event.   Instead Mr. Clarke brought in photos of the man with a weapon at a picnic.  Wonderful bit of journalism.

As David Brooks wrote in his brilliant column Tuesday, liberals are harping on certain candidates in this campaign ''because it feels so delicious to feel superior to opponents you consider to be feeble-minded wackos'' and ignoring others because ''it doesn’t feel good when your opponents are experienced people who simply have different points of view.''  THey know whats coming, and are desperate for a narrative that will insulate them from the reality of it.

And to paraphraise Peter Berkowitz in resopnse to EJ Dionne's columns about the Tea Party, America and its bloggers like to harp about the ''importance of a thoughtful conservatism'' but ''seem unaware of its existence.''

When have you seen in this space these bloggers addressing real arguments from the other side?  During an election year?  Instead, you get these type posts, broken up by posts calling conservatives professional cynics who just rather tear down than build up. 

I was wrong in my comment above.  The women made a quick aggressive movement at  the open window of the car where Rand Paul was seated.  She  was restrained and removed from the car and let go.  She then about 30 seconds later made another very  quick second aggressive move at Rand Paul after he left the car.  That is when she was restrained and held and which she struggled hard against this restraint.


She acted no differently than one who might be trying to seriously harm Rand Paul.  If someone made two very aggressive physical moves against anyone, I would be praising the people restraining this person and in no way would be sympathizing with her.  Especially since she was using a disguise.

'And really, Mr. Cosgrove? You don't see a connection here between a man with poor threat assessment skills and an overeagerness to resort to force with the foundational exhortations of the open carry movement?'

What poor threat assessment.  She made two very aggressive moves against Rand Paul in about 30 seconds.  After the first she was let go.  After the second you have to wonder that this extremely inappropriate behavior might represent a serious action of a demented person.

'Finally, you take this opportunity to casually slander me.'

You use your own words and your own actions by what you write to indicate how you think as well as the editors of this site by what they allow as posts.  And such  'tomfoolery' is inappropriate on a Jesuit or a religious site.  The picture you linked to was meant for only one reason and that was to demean the individual.  I have no idea what this person is about but you immediately went to something completely unrelated to the incident.  I do know that this person was immediately told to back off his actions by the other people there.  And the fact that this was an extremely isolated incident speaks volumes to the peacefulness of the Tea Party movement which is where one should have gone immediately.  

But no, you went on to try to promote the false meme that the Tea Party is violent.  This is ludicrous when the event  was provoked by aggressive actions by an anti Tea Party person.  The true meme is that the Tea Party is not violent and  that  anti Tea Party people are going to extremes to create a false image and your post fit this meme.  So your post above and your subsequent comments are indicative of the true meme.

I think the "tomfoolery", "craziness" & "breezy commenting" would be more appreciated if when conservative commentators engage in similar things, the editors wouldn't characertize it as "snarky" or "snide" and delete it.  I'm all for tomfoolery, but the rules should be applied fairly.

The guy's response was an overreaction, no doubt.  But sometimes an overreaction is just an overreaction and not an indictment on an entire movement or point of view.  Democrats would have been well-served in this election cycle if they had spent less time trying to de-legitimize the tea party and simply responded to the arguments (or make their own).

Arguably, the video and the photo prove the opposite of what Mr. Clarke seems to fear about gun owners:  The guy stomped on the woman, he didn't shoot her.   And frankly, given her aggressive behavior and disguise, she was lucky to not have been shot by the police.

'' if I don't agree with you, it's okay for me to wrestle you to the ground and manhandle you, and the 2nd amendment gives folks the unrestricted right to carry military grade weaponry around at any and all times in church, restaurants, etc., because, you know, responsible gun owners don't need to be ''well regulated'' in the appropriate use of force.''
 
If I ever wanted to  show evidence of attitude this post is a good example.  There are so many non sequiturs here that the only way to explain why they are all together is an agenda.
 
 
This woman attacked Rand Paul's car.  She was then wrestled down as she vehemently fought those who were protecting Rand Paul.
 
 
Someone did something very inappropriate and was immediately chastised by the others.
 
 
From that we get it's all right to wrestle you to the ground (perfectly appropriate for someone that just made a violent attempted attack on someone) and manhandle you.  The only thing that counts as manhandling was immediately objected to and it stopped.  What one gets from the video is that is inappropriate to use unusual force which is a good message to send and live by.
 
 
Then we get a tirade about the 2nd amendment and the carrying of military grade weaponry.  I might ask why one would make these connections.  What has one to do with the other.