I’d say anyone who really, really wants to exercise his right to carry a loaded weapon outside a presidential appearance is probably 1) angry, and 2) not blessed with good judgment. This reassures me!
Of all rights, the right to bear arms is the fucking stupidest. Arizona’s “open carry” law sounds like a delicious refinement on this stupidity.
Of course, whoever’s head finally pops may not take a shot at Obama, he may just spray the crowd. Or maybe nothing will happen — guessing is part of the fun.
update, At least he’s smiling. Note: This is the fellow that Allahpundit and Confederate Yankee thought might be pro-Obama because he was strolling with his loaded automatic weapon near people who had pro-health reform signs. What does the fellow himself say? “Taxation is theft.” So there goes the “both sides are packing” meme.
On a brighter note, he tells us, “We will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote.” If you lose an election, start shooting. (Via Talking Points Memo.)
[ added 8’20: The third photo and an accompanying thought: Did the guy change from a white shirt to a blue shirt during the rally? And for a lunatic he is one good-looking man. ]
update, So Uland calls me out in Comments with his views on gun control. He raises good points, so now I’ve expanded my thoughts. They’re presented here as responses to various bits taken from his comments, starting with:
“Is this post for me? Thank you.”
No! I’m just pissed and feeling vocal. But I can see how you might think it was a jab at you, so I apologize for that.
“First off, the right to carry that exists in some states is not a second amendment right . Related, of course, but those are distinct sets of policy in which special license is required.”
I know that! From my post: “Of all rights, the right to bear arms is the fucking stupidest. Arizona’s ‘open carry’ law sounds like a delicious refinement on this stupidity.” So I get the distinction.
“I don’t think they ‘want to’ carry guns around the president.”
Then they must be sleepwalking or under mind control. What you call symbolic is still a real action, and it’s an action that I very much dislike and resent. I don’t want my country’s political system at such immediate risk of destabilization thru violence.
“Since conceal/carry laws have been passed in many states, the crimes-with-firearms rates have not moved one way or the other.”
What about accidental shootings? And here I’m actually curious, not trying to pose a stumper.
My feeling: guns are fine in the right context, like a firing range or a hunting trip, or if they’re being handled by a security officer who’s been trained decently, but otherwise I don’t want them around. Especially if the person who’s the lynchpin of my country’s government is anywhere nearby. Doesn’t mean I want to ban guns; does mean I think it’s stupid to treat them as a right. If the 2nd Amendment ever gets offed, put me down for any regulations that would prevent spectacles like the one in Arizona.
A final point, an important one. Uland says of the gun fellow’s comment:
he’s saying that a majority cannot vote away the rights of a minority; that’s the premise of inalienable rights/Constitutional system.
First, because I haven’t heard the rest of the fellow’s comments, it’s possible that he was talking specifically about rights. But the quote in question does not specify the minority’s rights as being at stake. And, at any rate, the fellow believes that taxation is robbery, so what he considers a right may well be very different from what people of normal mental constitution might consider a right. So I stand by my summary of his position: When you lose an election, start shooting.
Second, he is definitely not saying only “that a majority cannot vote away the rights of a minority.” He is advocating the resolution of such situations thru force.
And, you know, we have a court system. That’s what it’s for. The guy seems to care about the Constitution as long as it puts a gun in his hands, and after that the law can go out the window. Maybe he’s an Eagle Scout, but he scares me and I don’t like what he’s saying.
Is this post for me? Thank you.
First off, the right to carry that exists in some states is not a second amendment right . Related, of course, but those are distinct sets of policy in which special license is required.
Secondly, I don't think they "want to" carry guns around the president; it's clearly a symbolic gesture, meant to advertise the fact that they're a part of a distinct group with specific concerns and views. They get to be on TV, which is a pretty common goal among all activists.
Third, I think a lot of laws are dumb too. It doesn't add much to the debate. If you'd like one, I'd probably go for it.
Fact: Since conceal/carry laws have been passed in many states, the crimes-with-firearms rates have not moved one way or the other. It's been about 15 years since it passed in Minnesota.
I don't know how this stuff is being presented in Canada ( which as a Nation seems pretty obsessed with American racism and uses it to create social policy and talking points for state media) but I know how it's being presented here. The thing they always seem to leave out is that these conceal/carry guys are almost always Eagle Scout, law and order types that live in the 'burbs. They're no threat.
Those that are threats are carrying unregistered, illegal fire arms. %80 of gun crime is with those firearms, and much of the rest are guns that are not registered to the shooter.
With that quote, he's saying that a majority cannot vote away the rights of a minority; that's the premise of inalienable rights/Constitutional system.
"these conceal/carry guys are almost always Eagle Scout, law and order types"
Who is and is not a threat in a particular situation varies a whole lot on a number of variables. Law and order, law abiding citizens have been known to resort to violence in lots of different situations, some justified, some not so much. It seems to me, in any case, like open weapons at a political rally, whether the president is there or not, raises certain free speech concerns, no matter how nice the people holding those weapons may be.
Fine post Tom. You know in 3rd world countries there is always a threat of violence that hangs over election time and other political occasions. I would never have thought I would see that threat of violence in the Land of the Fee.
Tom says guns are fine in certain scenarios (hunting trips) and asks about accidental shooting statistics….
Dick Cheney anyone?
Oh, come on Eric. You can't blame most gun owners just because the devil himself shot somebody. That's hardly fair.
I don't think these guys showing up at rallies with guns reveals a greater threat than what was already there.
Noah- I agree that given the situation, all different "types" could engage in violence. I was commenting more about how these people are often presented as a kind of threat that they are not; they are not anarchistic, do anything to prove a point types. If anything, they are the opposite, seeking to enforce Constitutional limits very stridently; They see Federal government as refuting those limits and "going rogue".
I don't relish the idea at all, but I think it is necessary to let government know that there is a force that is willing to meet yours, should it come down to it.
I don't think a town-hall meeting on healthcare is an appropriate forum for these displays, but the fear-mongering over it is dishonest and cynical.
"I don't relish the idea at all, but I think it is necessary to let government know that there is a force that is willing to meet yours, should it come down to it. "
— We can scoff it away right now and take it all for granted, but I do honestly believe that without that force, tyranny would more easily find root, and I think that it's pretty safe to say that's a common fear, right and left.
The trick is to portray that message as coming from would-be tyrants ( read: white, racist, rural, southerner) , and getting us to believe that they're the threat government must have enough power to control effectively.
"The trick is to portray that message as coming from would-be tyrants ( read: white, racist, rural, southerner) , and getting us to believe that they're the threat government must have enough power to control effectively."
But there are would be tyrants, yes? Timothy McVeigh isn't a figment of the imagination.
You're claiming that people wandering around with guns teaches the government to stay within bounds. I think that's exactly backwards. Violence feeds on violence. Terrorism (and that's more or less what you're talking about) enables state violence, just as state violence encourages terrorism. The two need each other. Folks who bring guns to a presidential rally are not helping to limit government power any more than Osama Bin Ladin is actually reducing U.S. involvement in the Middle East.