Chris B. (left) and Ernest Hancock (right) / You Tube
On Tuesday I wrote Man carries assault rifle outside Obama protest because "He could." Well it turns out that he and the dozen or so other people openly carried their weapons outside the Phoenix Convention Center where Barack Obama was speaking, not only because “they could” but more accurately because they “were told to.”
The sight of the well-dressed, AR-15 toting man identified simply as Chris B. was told to appear with his rifle by Ernest Hancock, an anti-government conspiracy theorist who staged the event to raise awareness of the militia mentality threat against any movement they consider the least bit “Liberal.” Hancock is a Right-Wing Phoenix online radio host with friendly ties to, and a vocal supporter of the 1990’s Viper Team Militia group caught surveying government buildings in Arizona, who were later convicted for multiple weapons charges including a stockpile of ammonium nitrate, the same substance Timothy McVeigh used on April 19th, 1995, to blow-up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City killing 168 people.
All of this is continuously staged in an endless drama of protecting their 2nd Amendment rights against their imagined threat of liberal, socialist tyranny.
There is nothing so tyrannical as a government attempting to provide equal and efficient health care for all of its citizens. And even though many of the ignorant people like Chris B. and Ernest Hancock who are being manipulated by big insurance are fighting against themselves in favor of insurance companies who only want to rape them in the name of more obscene profits, they truly believe they are fighting the “good fight” as patriots, just like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry did over two hundred years ago.
Delusional militia minded followers like Chris B., Ernest Hancock and more famously Timothy McVeigh selectively remember only the revolutionary rhetoric that this country’s founders uttered in their very real fight against tyranny. They conveniently forget the civil order our founding fathers set out to create. They conveniently forget the huge success of the generally civilized society the political experiment known as the United States of America came to be. And while not perfect by any means, they conveniently forget how it has endured and evolved despite the threats of individual and organized fanatics.
Should the 2nd Amendment be repealed? You decide, go to the poll.
Comments
William Skordelis is a ding dong and a slanted reporter. Fire him!
Ouch! Methink Mr. Skordelis' thoughts are no more "slanted" than those of Mr. Hancock. If Skordelis is a "ding-dong", Hancock's a screaming banshee.
William Skordelis is why newspapers and the news media in general will be out of business soon. No need for your bias, just report the news and facts.
Let's make NO mistake about it!...the Founders of this Republic created the 2nd Amendment because they knew first hand that a tyrannical government's first step is to disarm the populace and that the only defence against tyrannical government is a well armed citizenry. The purpose to the 2nd Amendment right is to defend AGAINST GOVERNMENT as the Founders intended - everything else is secondary. And of course, that is the exact reason why government works so hard to restrict gun ownership. Read Edwin Viera's book; "Constitutional Homeland Security", and learn for yourself!
When either side uses hyperbole in the health care debate it makes them appear to be foolish liars. This article is no exception.
The reason the insurance companies are so atrocious is that they USE the government to create an unbalanced market in their favor. The best health care reform would be to get the government out the sector completely so costs could come down. No more favors, no more legislation skewing the free market. That would really make a difference.
It was silly to stage this publicity stunt, and the writer of this article fell into an equally silly argument against it. Too bad people won't or can't really talk about the issues.
I just looked at the poll for the second amendment question. What total bunk! Mr. Skordelis, do you really think that is a valid poll question? Are you intentionally being manipulative so you can pretend you got an honest answer to your poll? Or are you not wise enough to know that your poll question is incredibly skewed?
Dixon already explained to you the reason for the Second Amendment.
When this country was founded, the framers knew that government was something to be feared. That is why they tried to keep it very small without much power.
You seem to incorrectly believe that all one needs is absolute faith in the morons who are elected to office and nothing can go wrong. Do you really trust that those crooks are there to protect YOU? If so, you need an antidote to the Kool Aid.
I won't even bother to mention the fact that criminals, by definition, don't follow laws. So, if all people are unarmed, the criminals have free reign - like shooting fish in a barrel.
Did he put "government" and "efficient" in the same sentence? The only thing efficient about the government is how they indiscriminately cut checks.
William Skordelis is a f4ggot LOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL u got flamed n igger lover!
You, sir, are a maroon, to quote B. Bunny.
This man is actually paid to write? My, my...
I just looked at the poll for the second amendment question. What total bunk! Mr. Skordelis, do you really think that is a valid poll question? Are you intentionally being manipulative so you can pretend you got an honest answer to your poll? Or are you not wise enough to know that your poll question is incredibly skewed?
Dixon already explained to you the reason for the Second Amendment.
When this country was founded, the framers knew that government was something to be feared. That is why they tried to keep it very small without much power.
You seem to incorrectly believe that all one needs is absolute faith in the morons who are elected to office and nothing can go wrong. Do you really trust that those crooks are there to protect YOU? If so, you need an antidote to the Kool Aid.
I won't even bother to mention the fact that criminals, by definition, don't follow laws. So, if all people are unarmed, the criminals have free reign - like shooting fish in a barrel.
Hi Alex,
I guess I'm wrong but I thought police forces were paid to keep law and order. Maybe if they weren't busy busting people smoking weed, they'd be able to concentrate on real violent criminals. I think most law enforcement officers would agree that vigilantes are not the answer to fighting crime.
My poll is not meant to be scientific it's meant to see who votes for what. If you want scientific, try Gallup or some other company that makes big bucks doing it. Skewed? No more skewed than Right-Wing mentality.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!