Watch the video here
You know sometimes I really have to wonder if the media ever takes the time to research anything before they let fly.
Chris Matthews first takes off by introducing this guy as the person that carried a gun to a protest where the president was speaking. He then proceeds to ask who he voted for in the last election and if he questioned the legitimacy of Obama's birth status. What the hell? I thought that this interview would be about why he brought the gun.
OK, then right after those questions he slams the guy for bringing it asking why would he do that given the violent history of guns and the presidents of this country. Oh, I see, lets get the guy thinking in a different direction and then slam him in the face with those rapid fire attacks. When the interviewee, William Kostric, replies that he was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights Matthews replies (very aggressively) that he knows the laws - well Chris, why the hell are you asking the question again. He even then tries to provoke Kostric again with the line "why did you bring a god damn gun". Kostric keeps fairly good poise after that shot. I would of told Matthews to go pound sand up his MOTHTER'S ass and ended the interview.
Then Matthews tries to go after him by asking him to explain the history of people bringing guns presidential events, like Kostric should be some type of historic expert on this subject on the spot. Just for the record we have had 4 presidents killed by assassination by firearm (Presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinely and Kennedy) and 2 others hit by gunfire but survive (Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan). President Roosevelt was such a bigger than life bad ass that he actually finished the speech he was given at the time of the assassination attempt before seeking medical attention. Remember, nobody - I mean nobody - ever messed with Teddy. In total there have been over 90 attempts, many from foreign entities and not US citizens. Even then, these events are the price our society pays for having the freedoms we enjoy to bear arms and not live under a repressive regime that outlaws weapons and hides it leaders behind castle walls.
Kostric then fires a big shot back stating that "we just made new history, I was there today, there was a peaceful rally, no one was injured, no one on our side was alarmed, people in New Hampshire are used to seeing firearms, no one from New Hampshire was alarmed. Maybe some of the people they had bussed in from Massachusetts were alarmed, but we aren't concerned about them." OOOH, BURN!
Matthews then calms down a bit (probably figuring this wasn't their stereotypical Billy Bob gun totin' rube that they think we all are) and starts asking some leading questions to Kosteric about his beliefs. Social Security: wrong, Medicaid: wrong, Federal reserve: wrong, income tax: wrong. Wonder what this is leading up to...ooh there it is.. the "therefore you brought a gun to a presidential meeting about health care." Kostric then repeats his rights to open carry in his state to which Matthews mutters something about his family members in the NRA blah, blah, blah. He again asks what was he trying to bring to the meeting with his gun and sign (the sign referenced Thomas Jefferson's statement about the tree of liberty needing to be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots, nobody messed with TJ either in his day). Kostric answers back basically the only way he can, (this is my paraphrasing of what he states) he was trying to make a statement to the president that those on that side of the spectrum are still here and we still need to be considered.
God, I am so sick of watching Matthews try and slide one last shot in before he cuts away its getting hard to keep this going. Here goes, Matthews then, after a series of questions, asks Kostric, "if you are advocating violence what is the point of bringing a show of force to a demonstration" (sic) Kostric then proceeds to reinstate that he was exercising his rights. Matthews then asks him if 1,000 people had been armed if it would have been safer, "absolutely" is Kostric's answer.
First off, well done Mr. Kostric. You fended off a professional interviewer on his turf during what was obviously set up to be a slam dunk ambush. Good for you!! In the last presidency we saw waves of violent protests that were "democracy and freedom of speech in action", now a person cannot even exercise not only the 2nd Amendment rights but also the laws of their own state while also exercising their 1st amendment rights without being convicted in a court of public opinion without a trial. We got that trial in the court of the media today and I think a well deserved aquittal was won.
What we saw here was a failed attempt by the media to try and move public sentiment away from 2A rights. There logic always seems to find the same path.
If presidential assination = bad,
then person next to president with gun = bad,
then person owning gun = bad,
then gun ban = good.
To bad that theory in places like Chicago hasn't worked.
If store clerk being shot = bad,
then person bringing gun into store = bad,
then person owning gun =bad,
then gun ban = good
no legal handguns = increased homicide rate(?) - wow, how did that happen, oh yeah, criminals don't obey laws! (how many times do I need to point that out?)
For Matthews and all the others out there, I told you I would be watching you.....
2nd Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)