It seems that “freedom loving” Americans can’t get enough of carrying their firearms with them when they protest an appearance by President Obama. It happened in Vermont New Hampshire last week and again today in Arizona where at least a dozen men appeared carrying either semi-automatic pistols or semiautomatic carbines (sometimes referred to as assault rifles) or both. They claim, of course, that they are merely exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Enjoying their god given freedoms, in other words. However, it’s funny, but I don’t remember anyone, liberal, conservative or otherwise carrying weapons to protest any appearance President Bush made. I do recall people being expelled from Bush events for wearing t-shirts with the “wrong” political message written on them (freedom of speech being one of the lesser liberties to which we are entitled under the Constitution, I guess).
Still, it seems rather disconcerting to find that conservatives feel the need to pack heat when protesting. Guns are dangerous enough without bringing them to a crowded political event and forcing security to spend extra time and resources watching these citizens enjoy their rights. Certainly there is little need to do so. There is nothing to hunt at such events (unless you consider hunting liberals to be a valid use of a weapon) and with all the security there is little danger to the people who attend these events either in support of the President or in opposition to him. Well, little danger to those in attendance unless some of them bring that danger with them in the form of loaded firearms.
Which brings me to my quote of the day by the Brady Campaign’s President Paul Helmke:
Bringing loaded firearms to any Presidential event endangers all in attendance. Even though our weak national and state gun laws may allow this dangerous behavior, we should use a little common sense. Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers, thus stretching their protective efforts even thinner. The possibility that these weapons might be grabbed or stolen or accidently mishandled increases the risks of serious injury or death to all in attendance.
The National Rifle Association and other ‘gun rights’ groups need to send a message about ‘gun responsibilities’ to their members and all gun owners. Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement, and end up stifling debate. Presidential protesters need to leave their firearms at home — no exceptions.”
I couldn’t agree more. There is no need for to bring weapons to a political event unless your goal is to intimidate those with whom you disagree into silence, or unless you intend to use those weapons to assassinate a political figure. Neither of those is a legitimate exercise of one’s right to bear arms. As good old boy Fred Thompson once said (while giving a performances as an actor in a movie):
“This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”
Indeed. And if any of you on the right think otherwise, just ask yourself this question: What would you have said about liberals bringing guns to protest an event at which President Bush had made an appearance? And please, don’t make me laugh by claiming you would have had no problem with such behavior by “leftist” gun enthusiasts. We all know you would be lying through your teeth.
If someone had shown up outside a Bush Town Hall with an AR-15 they would have been at GITMO inside 24 hours.
Or the beneficiary of an extraordinary rendition. Assuming that is they weren’t just shot on sight by local law enforcement.
And they rightly should have been. Well not Gitmo, but the local jail. I’m a staunch defender of the right to bear arms, but as Justice Brandeis(?) said of the right to free speech, it doesn’t give you the right to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, neither does the second amendment give you the right to carry assassination-capable weapons to a political event.
I think the key legal consideration here is intent. Openly brandishing firearms under almost any context outside of a firing range or in the woods during hunting season is usually intended to be an act of intimidation. It’s hard to imagine what else it could signify at a political rally featuring the president beyond an implicit threat of assassination. As such, it is illegal, and the law should be enforced.
Let me clarify that while I am fairly indifferent to the Second Amendment — I view gun ownership as a privilege, not a right — I do own several guns, including an assault rifle. That I am legally permitted to own them is not currently open to dispute. That does not mean that I have the right to stand in my front yard and point my rifle at passers-by so long as I refrain from pulling the trigger. Consider that if one of those passers-by interpreted my actions as a threat, drew his own gun, and shot me to death. Is there a jury in the land who would not say he was justified in acting in self-defense?
People who think their right to own guns extends to political terrorism should be reacquainted with their right to an attorney and a speedy trial.
You and I are on the same page, Corvus. These nuts make things bad for responsible gun owners, including hunters, collectors, and those who have a need for enhanced self defense.
They would have been shot on sight…
Hey, wasn’t it just last week that a couple of black women were assaulted at a town hall meeting for unrolling a poster of Rosa Parks? And wasn’t there a teabagger encouraging the screamers to bring guns to these events? And didn’t that white guy even get interviewed on tv for his pistol-packing and his threatening “Tree of Liberty” sign?
So today a black man shows up with a pistol on his hip and an assault rifle over his shoulder. I guess that shows intimidation can go both ways. It could also be called detente.
Well, I have no idea what was the political persuasion of the black gun carrier, but the story says at least a dozen people were carrying weapons. That seems more than excessive. It seems a recipe for a massacre.
O jeez! I thought he was making a “Black Power” statement. Instead, he’s a taxation-is-theft nut! EEEK!
it’s open season, steven.
covert threats of violence have no place in a civil society, especially when associated with political discourse. but the RATs, and their acolytes, have never been about civility, nor subtlety.
hiding behind the 2nd amendment ain’t gonna cut it, nor will beck, limpbaugh, o’liely, etal, hiding behind the 1st. when all this insanity culminates in it’s obvious conclusion…someone’s gonna get killed.
this has to stop.
I fear it won’t stop until someone (or several people) are shot dead. And maybe not even then.
didn’t take these bozos aside for a few questions?
The Local LE, I understand leaving them be…’Sheriff Joe’ is a little more mainstream (in that crowd, in that locale) than one might think.
I would bet that, under questioning, the rationale they’d provide to pack heat to a Presidential town-hall would likely provide strong argument for revokation of their carry-permits.
They weren’t there to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights….they were looking for an excuse to do something–either ‘suicide by cop’ or ‘huntin Libruls’
You really gotta wonder why Barack Obama is facing a situation like this?
It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that republicans want their country back-would it?
I didn’t notice that their country had actually gone anywhere-has anyone else noticed if the republican party’s county has actually gone anywhere?
Of course when they yell, “I want my country back” I really have to wonder if the country that they want back is the country that-previous to this last election-only elected only WHITE presidents?
Do ya think that could be the country they want back?
They have a BLACK president.
So “Shut up you Morans!” They’re askeered.
No doubt that these individuals are strong proponents of family values.
Did you see the CNN coverage of one of the folks with guns.
He was a black guy in a white shirt and tie, had a belted pistol and an assault rifle slung over his shoulder.
Now here is what is weird. He is standing in front of the Health Reform Now folks.
Have we gotten to the “progressives can play this game too” point on open carry in these states where it is legal?
It was strange footage.
they asked him why he was carrying that assault rifle and he said “because I can”. I wondered if he was sending a message to the teabaggers. (in which case, hah, hah)
Guns are fine for hunting, I have no problem with that (so long as the hunting itself is legal). I can understand carrying a gun if you feel you might need to defend yourself in particular circumstances (though really, there are few circumstances for most people where that’s really necessary).
But there are places where guns do not belong, by virtue of common sense. One is a bar. People under the influence of alcohol might do things they would never do while sober, and may well do things they would later have reason to regret.
The other place is any public setting like a political meeting (or religious meeting, for that matter) where people with strong, opposing points of view and opinions might come into conflict, and where conflict might spiral out of hand. When tempers flare, the LAST thing you need in that situation is some hothead with a gun.
And I cannot think of any reason why anyone would come openly armed to such an event EXCEPT with the intent to intimidate others, even if the firearm isn’t loaded and is never taken out of its holster. A gun is an implied threat — don’t provoke me into using this.
At first I thought the Secret Service’s hands-off-and-observe approach to the first guy who showed up with a firearm last week was not unreasonable, considering the guy was not really close to the event and it was an open-carry state. It’s not like they were ignoring him, they just assessed the real threat to the President and took actions accordingly.
But since he wasn’t stopped or harassed, and even got to spout off on national television, perhaps that sent the wrong message to the anti-reform, anti-Obama crowd — perhaps more of them want their moment of fame on TV, perhaps they want to keep pushing just to see how far they can go… perhaps they think that being armed makes them look tougher and authenticates their creds as Real Americans (ie, not liberals) or something. Perhaps, instead of interpreting the Secret Service reaction as sane, even respectful of individual rights, they interpreted it as a weakness.
Maybe in the long run, that wasn’t the best approach. Lord knows that you’d never be allowed to carry in an airport or airplane (without special credentials, anyway). We don’t tolerate even the POSSIBILITY of that level of threat on airplanes, they were even confiscating nail files and shampoo bottles for a while there. NOBODY fucks around with airport security. Zero tolerance has its uses (even if their policies can be really ridiculous on non-weaponry items).
I’m worried less about Obama’s security (the Secret Service are damned good at their jobs), however, than I am the possibility of other random violence, against some other target — someone who doesn’t have professional protection. We’ve already seen it a number of times this summer. We really don’t need any more.
Wouldn’t Viagra be cheaper?
Here’s a little something else that will curl your hair-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E98BHTR_Fm4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailykos%2Ecom%2Fstoryonly%2F
2009%2F8%2F18%2F768983%2F%2DTeabagger%2DWoman%2DYells%2DHeil%2DHitler%2DAt%2DJewish%2DHealthcare%2DD
efenderVideo%2D&feature=player_embedded
“Wow, didn’t realize that the Secret Service could hit a target 300 times from 1000 feet away in under 3 seconds…”
Rest assured, someone bringing an assault rifle to a Bush gathering would not have lived to tell the tale.