Ballot Box vs. Box of Bullets
With a loaded AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle strung casually over his shoulder, a 9-millimeter Beretta pistol strapped to hip, and a bullet clip in his back pocket, Christopher Broughton stood yards from our president at a rally in Arizona this past week. Who was this person, and what was his goal in showing up looking like a character from Kill Bill Volume 2? Perhaps his goal was to show that he was not a fan of Present Obama's health insurance reform? Or perhaps Christopher armed himself to show that he had the right to carry the weapon? Was President Obama's rally even about gun ownership? Regardless, the presence of an obviously armed attendee endangers the president and potentially chills free speech and free assembly.
Having worked at the White House, and on a Senate campaign with the former First Lady (now Secretary of State), I have supreme confidence in the power, prowess and capability of the Secret Service to protect President Obama. One way to be identified in a crowd at a presidential rally is to carry a semi-automatic rifle and handgun. From the moment he was within the perimeter of the event, if not before, I imagine he was being monitored. Far more dangerous is the unknown would-be assassin, not advertising their agenda like a neon night in Vegas. How much effort from limited police resources was spent baby-sitting this likely harmless fellow, as opposed to looking for real threats to the president?
What strikes me as more dangerous, still, is the public's reaction -- or lack thereof. Where is the public outrage? The United States has lurched through the dramatic and abrupt early end of a presidency a number of times. It is a crippling period of disruption and public convulsion. As a nation we use the ballot box, not a box of bullets to judge the policies of a president or any elected leader. That is our strength, our brand that we export to the rest of the world. Yet, here was a man with a semi-automatic assault rifle hanging off his shoulder at a presidential rally on health care -- and there was not a serious murmur about a law, rule or regulation that might exempt our national leader from such assertions and threats.
As serious is the potential chilling effect this would have with public discourse. What if fifty people had shown up with semi-automatic assault rifles? A hundred? Would non-weapon bearing people come out to a town hall with their Congressional representative or president? If they did show up, how loud would you yell at someone with a loaded weapon on the other side of the debate? The country seems unable to draw a reasonable limit on the exercise of a right for the collective good.
Positions about the Second Amendment aside, surely the nation can agree that the sanctity of the life of the president is beyond partisanship, rhetoric or demagoguery. The muted reaction of Congress, the news media and the public is the most troubling sign yet of an inexplicable fear about confronting an obvious problem with a moderate solution. I would propose that no one gets to carry a gun anywhere near a president unless they work for the president. This fellow was carrying his arsenal to threaten and intimidate, not to express a position on health insurance reform. This matter is not about policies on the Second Amendment or whether you agree with the president's health insurance reform, its about our national fidelity to the idea of politics by democracy, not politics by guns and intimidation.
In the future, if you want to prove a point about the Second Amendment, please break out some sign boards and sharpies -- words have never killed presidents.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
David, your article is filled with errors.
"With a loaded AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle strung casually over his shoulder, "
There is no such thing as a semi-auto assault rifle.
"Christopher Broughton stood yards from our president"
He was never close to our President. He was not in the room. He was not in the building. He was not on the property, he was some distance away and never was within sight of the President.
"From the moment he was within the perimeter of the event, if not before, I imagine he was being monitored. "
He told the police he was coming. There were two police officers with 10 feet of him. The US Secret Service said they had no problems with him being where he was.
"As serious is the potential chilling effect this would have with public discourse."
He was not in an area where there was any public discourse. He was in a rally area where people hold up signs opposing one another, but do not engage in dialogue, discussion, or debate.
"I would propose that no one gets to carry a gun anywhere near a president unless they work for the president."
That is already how it is. This guy was not near the President.
These loony tunes are sure giving the Democrats more firepower for the next election cycle than any gun or weapon can match.
The guy currently has the right to show up with his guns. However, if he touches the guns in a suspicious way, then the secret service will be forced to blow him away.
As to the lack of reaction nationally. Well, the lack of reaction from the left may have something to do with the disappointment of the left with Obama's continuing attempts at bipartisanship, lack of action on DOMA and DADT, bungling of the health care debate, etc. If your "hero" is not being too heroic, then you would not be too disappointed if the righties did the unthinkable. Would Biden be an improvement? Would the righties be actually shooting themselves in the foot, if Biden were to take over?
Like it or not, we have the right in this country to arm ourselves. As you stated, it's the guy who *doesn't* brazenly show his gun that needs to be worried about. And, as you know as well as everyone else, the serious threat is going to come from a person wearing a suicide vest under his clothing. No metal, all plastic and fabric.
Like it or not, if you feel the need to pack heat at a rally regarding health insurance reform, you probably have absolutely nothing going for you in life.
Thus speaks the guy who has no facts to back his arguments, and therefore won't respond to question or argument.
Semper fi
The guy at the 1st town hall meeting in NH started this trend. I live in NH in the same town where the leaders of the Free State Project also live. They've openly carried guns in our small downtown district in the presence of children. Sadly, they don't have a clue about the dangers they present. Since it's not their intent to be threatening, they somehow dismiss the idea that others would be threatened. These people ARE dangerous and organized. I'm in contact with our NH legislature to try to adjust the NH open-carry regulations. For example, it's illegal to discharge a firearm from a vehicle or from or across a road, sidewalk, path, or right-of-way in pursuit of game or wildlife. The 'wildlife' phrase should be dropped. The 'discharge' should be changed to 'loaded or discharged'. The NH laws restricting concealed-carry are strict and require justification and police permission. Even the NRA safety guidelines strongly suggest that guns remain unloaded until you intend to use them. They strongly urge members to never carry a loaded weapon in the presence of children or situations where the weapon might be within the reach of others. My actions might make a difference. Passive acceptance won't. The Secret Service doesn't protect me from these idiots who live right down the road from where I live. And the guy in AZ belongs to the same organization.
Specifically, what dangers DO they represent? What shooting sprees have taken place around those "endangered" children.
The NRA does NOT suggest that firearms should not be carried loaded around children, or can you cite something to back up your argument. The NRA does suggest that firearms be locked up or beyond the abilities of a child to access them when in the home!
Please educate yourself instead of believing the sound-bytes of the Left.
Semper fi
"Sadly, they don't have a clue about the dangers they present."
You you have no clue as to what dangers they do not present.
"The 'discharge' should be changed to 'loaded or discharged'."
That would make no sense.
I suspect this armed man was in the very close company of many officers sworn to protect and defend the president. I also suspect that his new friends would be much quicker and more practised with their sidearms.
He called the police before hand and told them he would be there and he would be carrying. Two police officers were within 10 ft of him.
How close would this guy have gotten to President Bush or any other president for that matter? The Republicans under Bush were so afraid of words that they herded protesteres into isolated "Free Speech Zones". Imagine if one of them had been carrying a gun.
Gops consider science textbooks to be more dangerous than weaponry.
Can you cite any specific examples, and quote the relevent people?
Semper fi
Sorry, that was done also at the Democrat Convention. Was Bush responsible for that?
Semper fi
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
