tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com — Ernest Hanc**k, who had a 9 mm pistol & was with an assault rifle-wielding cohort at the Obama event in Arizona yesterday, was a vocal supporter and friend of right-wing anti-government militia members who were convicted of conspiracy and weapons charges in the 90s. The Viper Militia was charged with plotting to blow up federal buildings in 1996.
Aug 18, 2009 View in Crawl 4
khfnAug 20, 2009
Oh, ok. Maybe not so skillful.
feignnuAug 20, 2009
"did you seriously just say that a .9mm is as deadly as an AR-15? It holds a large clip, has extraordinary muzzle velocity... Those things can punch through light armor, let alone crowds of civilians."You're just showing your ignorance here. An AR-15 can come in many calibers, the most popular for civilian forms of the weapon being .223, which is on the low end of rifle calibers. The muzzle velocity of a .223 isn't really *that* much higher than a .22, and the idea that it could "punch through light armor" is as laughable as it is irrelevant. Any experienced hunter can tell you that a .223 is often not even enough firepower to cleanly kill a small deer. Also, as I said, an AR-15 can be converted to lots of different calibers, even 9mm (note, there is no such caliber as ".9mm"). As for the "clip" size, standard issue magazines for the AR-15 hold 20-30 rounds...which isn't even all that much. You could have the same ammunition capacity by simply carrying two or three 10 round magazines, so besides making it look sort of scary, why do you think a 20-30 round magazine makes the weapon any more dangerous? Also, as an aside, a clip is a device for storing ammunition prior to loading it into a magazine. A magazine is what actually goes into the gun. You meant magazine. The bottom line is, you don't know what caliber his weapon was, you're randomly speculating about its "extraordinary" muzzle velocity and armor piercing capabilities (neither of which you can know without knowing the caliber), and you're pretending like a 20 round clip somehow makes the weapon extra lethal. In reality the rifle he was carrying is functionally nearly identical tons of other non-scary-looking rifles, which I highly doubt you would be describing with such alarmist language, or as "such a deadly weapon". So yes, I am saying you have no reason, other than cosmetics, to think that rifle is more deadly than a 9mm, especially given that it might even have actually BEEN a 9mm. Of course all of this is really quite beside the point. Even if he had been carrying a high caliber conversion of the rifle with an "extraordinary" muzzle velocity that was capable of piercing armor, there would still be no need for all your alarmist language, for the simple reason that he wasn't doing anything dangerous with the rifle. It's an inanimate object, which cannot function without a human operator. Your comments are akin to saying that it would be unbelievably dangerous and irresponsible to have a parked race car at this demonstration just because race cars can drive really fast, and you could totally run over crowds of civilians with one. "If your argument is that the only way his possession of the rifle was responsible was because he never had it anywhere close to ready to use, then my point stands."My argument is that he was not doing anything irresponsible or dangerous with the weapon. He was just carrying it, and there's nothing inherently dangerous or scary about that. This is why I asked you to tell me exactly what you think was so irresponsible and dangerous about what he did. All you seem to be able to come up with is "it's a big scary gun, and he was carrying it in public just for the sake of making a point!" I agree with you that he was carrying it as a symbolic gesture and not for self-defense, and I agree with you that it's a pretty stupid gesture, because it has nothing to do with health care and it just hurts the already hurting "discussion" on this important topic, but I completely disagree that this somehow makes what he did dangerously irresponsible."If he had been pointing it at anyone or disengaging the safety, he would be WELL beyond just infantile and irresponsible, and hopefully he'd be dead from a Secret Service bullet for posing a threat to the President. The fact that you feel the need to clarify that he was not aiming it and left the safety on just goes to demonstrate how utterly inappropriate it is to walk around with a rifle at a town hall meeting."This makes no sense. Watch, I'll play the same game with the race car analogy: If he had been recklessly driving that race car, or pointing it at people and gunning the engine, he would be WELL beyond just infantile and irresponsible, and hopefully he'd be dead from a Secret Service bullet for posing a threat to the President. The fact that you feel the need to clarify that he obeyed all the speed limit laws on his way to the rally, and that the car was parked and turned off just goes to demonstrate how utterly inappropriate it is to come to a town hall meeting in a race car.As for the Viper Militia business...I don't feel like I know enough about them to say much one way or another. However I will point out that they were convicted on conspiracy charges, not for actually perpetrating any acts of violence, so I think it's a bit of a stretch to flat out assert that they were a violent group. They may or may not have been *planning* to do violence, but even if they were, that doesn't make them violent. And then to turn around and call Bill Ayers "nonviolent"...that's some amazing doublethink. I mean, I was not amongst those who accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists". I don't think "terrorist" is really an appropriate label for Ayers, and I don't have any problem with Obama being involved with him. But there is no question about Ayers' involvement in the Weather Underground, and there is no question about the fact that the Weathermen used violence.
chesterogilvieAug 21, 2009
It's very difficult to find the perfect example I'm looking for considering that all 50 states have different laws and definitions for firearm ownership/carrying, but this will suffice. The wording is geared toward an imitation firearm being used to intimidate an officer but I think we can agree that the same behavior with a real firearm directed at ANY person would carry at least the same penalty (if not harsher). Carrying in an intimidating manner (which is determined by a judge I would guess) becomes aggravated assault thereby making it illegal. See the link:<a class="user" href="http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/assault11.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/ ...</a>"A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he . . . (k)nowingly points, displays or uses an imitation firearm . . . at or in the direction of a law enforcement officer with the purpose to intimidate, threaten or attempt to put the officer in fear of bodily injury or for any unlawful purpose."
alwaysturningAug 21, 2009
Thye weren't pointing it at anyone...at all
solistusAug 22, 2009
Yes, we are all aware of that. Remember how both of us were responding to a hypothetical suggestion of what would happen if they did? I guess not.
johnnysoftwareAug 25, 2009
"Tied" is kind of a sketchy verb. While usable in this case, it is only because the subject knew, liked, and verbally supported/defended the 9 members of the group. There is no mention in the article that he had knowledge or lent finanancial support to what what eventually led to their convictions.The article says they had bomb-making materials, in addition to 90 guns.On the flip side - what caused this man to bring such a powerful handgun to a meeting where the public was given a forum to ask question and glean information directly from the government?Did he carry it about all the time or was bringing it out of the ordinary for him?Instead of saying, "tied to" the title should have said "knew". That would have changed it to read "Man Behind Guns At Obama Event Knew Violent 90's Militia".