Guns, Guns, Everywhere

Every so often, we get a picture -- with crystal clarity -- of the kind of country the radical "gun rights" crowd wants America to be. It allows us to understand just how much is at stake in the gun control debate.

It apparently is not enough for opponents of the President's health care proposals to bring their signs and their voices to town hall meetings and Presidential speeches. Now they are bringing their guns.

Last week we were treated to a series of spectacles that had many rubbing their eyes in disbelief: an Arizona constituent of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords dropping a handgun while attending a "meet and greet" with Rep. Giffords at a local Safeway; a man bringing a concealed handgun to a town hall meeting with Rep. Steve Cohen of Memphis; a New Hampshire man standing outside the venue for a Presidential appearance on health care reform with a pistol openly strapped to his thigh.

The craziness continued this week. On Monday, a dozen people openly carrying guns were among the Obama protesters outside the Phoenix convention center where the President was giving a speech, including a gentleman who walked around with an AR-15 assault rifle strapped to his back, to say nothing of his openly-displayed handgun.

Judging from the public commentary about these stories, most Americans regard this behavior as bizarre, intimidating and dangerous, with frightening implications for the President's safety in particular. But it is important not to treat these incidents of public gun-carrying as merely the misguided behavior of a few individuals. It is more than that. What we are seeing is the acting out of two central tenets of the extremist "gun rights" ideology long espoused by the National Rifle Association and other radical Second Amendment absolutists.

The first tenet is that the more that law abiding citizens carry guns in public, the safer all of us will be. This view has led to a broadly successful campaign by the NRA to require authorities in most states to give out permits to carry concealed weapons to any adult without a criminal record. Once this beachhead was taken, the gun lobby moved methodically to allow concealed carry into more and more public places, including bars, churches, workplace parking lots, airports, parks, college campuses -- the list goes on and on. Indeed, in the infamous Thune Amendment, recently stopped in the Senate by only two votes, the gun lobby sought to protect gun carrying across state lines in complete derogation of the limits some states have placed on concealed carry licenses.

Much of the media attention to the recent spate of gun carriers has focused on their willingness to carry "openly" in full public view. A gun strapped to the thigh of an angry protester makes for great TV. But many Americans who find themselves appalled by these guns in plain sight need to realize that they are also exposed to the less visible risk of their fellow citizens carrying concealed weapons. Less visible, that is, until one of the "law abiding citizens" with a concealed carry permit commits a criminal act, like Richard Poplowski shooting and killing three police officers in Pittsburgh, Michael McLendon killing ten people in a rampage through rural Alabama, or George Soldini murdering three women and wounding nine others at a Pittsburgh-area fitness club.

That the Obama protesters are choosing to carry their guns openly implicates a second core principle of the radical "gun rights" ideology: the insurrectionist view of Second Amendment rights. This is the belief -- long a staple of NRA propaganda - that the Second Amendment is really about giving the people the right to resist their own government if it becomes a "tyranny". As an NRA official put it some years ago, "the Second Amendment... is literally a loaded gun in the hands of the people held to the heads of government." Whether the government has become a "tyranny" apparently is up to the individual to decide. For Timothy McVeigh, who had thoroughly absorbed this insurrectionist ideology, the Waco tragedy was sufficient justification to bomb a federal building in Oklahoma City.

The point of openly carrying guns at political events is to make a political statement and to do it in the most intimidating way possible. The statement is this: "You can have all the debates you want, but if laws are passed that I regard as 'tyranny,' I reserve the right to resist them by force of arms." The New Hampshire pistol-packer held a sign paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson's famous quotation, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." In a later interview he warned that "we're traveling down a road at breakneck speed that's toward tyranny," suggesting that the time to refresh the tree of liberty may be fast approaching.

The Phoenix assault rifle carrier chillingly explained, "we will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote." In other words, the right to vote may give us the appearance of equality as citizens, but being armed makes some of us more equal than others. Or, in the words of the NRA's Wayne LaPierre recently speaking to the Conservative Political Action Committee, "the guys with the guns make the rules."

So there you have it. The radical "gun rights" vision of the ideal America. Guns in every corner of American society -- concealed or carried openly for all to see -- threatening our safety and our democracy. For most Americans, the "gun rights" vision is nothing but a nightmare.

For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.

 

 

Comments

[benEzra]

The Official Media Freakout is *precisely* what the protesters were after. Taking advantage of MSM gullibility, gun ignorance, and paranoia to completely derail Obama's message about health care reform.

How many news articles and threads have we seen about what Obama said at that that forum, compared to how many articles and threads we've seen about some guy carrying an unloaded centerfire .22 in an unsecured area nowhere near the President, and what he and his friends may or may not have said?

Burying Obama's message under a flood of ZOMG SCAWY GUN!! stories wasn't unintentional; it was precisely the effect the protesters were after. They played it go suck media attention away from the President and onto themselves. And as a bonus, they even sidetrack a few legislators into trying to resurrect the gun-ban albatross instead of talking about health care reform; you think that was unintentional as well?

This publicity stunt was a red herring that should be ignored, but thanks to MSM gun-obsession it has managed to sidetrack a very important national debate for far too long. Get a grip, people.

[twogunmojo]

GritsJr I'm a Fan of GritsJr I'm a fan of this user 11 fans permalink

Could be anyone posting that, John. I wouldn't read too much into it. There have been no mass shootings committed this year by leftist radicals, can't say the same for the other side, though.
Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 PM on 08/21/2009­..........­.......
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­--------
so i guess you can provide a link to the political affiliation of louvelle mixon...you know him..the guy that killed all the cops in oakland.....

[djcrsn]

Actually Grits was proven wrong this week--an abortion opponent just got murdered.

[Leifrakur]

Firearms in the hands of the public at events designed for citizen discussion of political issues are a violation of Constitution’s purpose of “domestic tranquility,” as well as of the spirit of the First Amendment and of common sense itself.

Guns at such events inhibit free speech, an activity that the First Amendment was partly designed to protect, and infringe the right of the people “peaceably to assemble,” since many will avoid attending an event where they think gunfire might erupt.

Our republican form of government depends upon the expression of ideas without intimidation, not upon the philosophy that “the guys with the guns make the rules.” We need to enact and enforce better laws in recognition of that fact.

[OdinsEye]

Road apples.

[djcrsn]

'fakur--your histrionics are no better than Hennigan's--and I know you both have the goal of complete civilian disarmament--post Heller--not going to happen

[djcrsn]

And your opposition to the use of firearms for individual self defense costs people their lives since the ONLY laws that disarm criminal involve keeping violent criminals in prison

[EthanPDX]

It was not cool for the Right to play fast and loose with civil liberties they care little for (due process, privacy). It's no different when the Left does the same thing with the 2nd Amendment.

The founders weren't so stupid people. Part of the intent of the "militia" and right to bear arms aspects of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government from creating and maintaing a large standing military . . . had their intent been followed, had Iraq required the wholesale call-up of ordinary citizens . . . Bush's idiocy would have gone nowhere.

If our society no longer requires citizen ownership of guns, change the Constitution. Anything less is basically doing what Bush did. It's not a pick and choose document.

[legaleagle 45]

EthanPDX wrote: "Part of the intent of the "militia" and right to bear arms aspects of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government from creating and maintaing a large standing military . . . had their intent been followed, had Iraq required the wholesale call-up of ordinary citizens . . "

If their intent had been followed, the wholesale call-up of orfinary citizens would have been to no avail, since the militia, both historically and Constituionally could not be used outside of the USA. This problem first surfaced during the War of 1812, when some states refused to allow their militia to be employed for the purpose of invading Canada. The problem again arose in the Spanish-American War. This resulted in the creation of the National Guard and the "dual enlistment" provisions thereof which established the NG as a sorta "hybrid militia" + arm of the regular armed services. When they are not in federal service, the NG acts as a normal state militia, but when called into federal service, they act as members of the regular armed services and can be deployed oversea. The constituionality of this arrangement was decided by SCOTUS in a case called Perpich v. DoD, which held it ok because there is a statute which provides that the state can maintain a militia seperate from the NG which would not be subject to the "dual enlistment" provisions of the NG. Such militias do exist today in about 30 states, IIRC and are generally known

[legaleagle 45]

EthanPDX: "Part of the intent of the "militia" and right to bear arms aspects of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government from creating and maintaing a large standing military . . . had their intent been followed, had Iraq required the wholesale call-up of ordinary citizens"

If the intent of the framers had been followed, a wholesale callup of the militia would have been to noavai, since, both historically and Constituionally, the militia could not be deployed outside of the USA. This issue first arose during the War of 1812 when some states refused to send their militia to invade Canada. It again arose during the Spanish-American War and the result was the Dick Act which established the modern National Guard with a "dual enlistment" provision. Essentially what this provides is that when the NG is not in fed service, it is a regular militia, but when called into federal service, the NG becomes part of the regular armed services and can be deployed overseas.

The constituionality of this arrangement was challenged in a case called Perpich v DoD and SCOTUS put its seal of approval on same based upon another statute which allows a state to maintain a seperate militia not subject to the dual enlistment obligations.

[teetee5225]

I'm a supporter of the 2nd amendment, a liberal, military retiree, a gun owner. However, I'm also for good gun control laws! Restrictions should be placed on the type of guns available, amount of guns purchased, and restrictions on where these guns can be carried either concealed or openly! The objectives and policies of the NRA and other 2nd amendment groups have turned these once worth while groups into terrorists organizations that advocate and push these policies on other people. Making threats against our elected Senators and Congress is they do not adhere to their way of thinking. That is terrorism as defined by the federal government.

[mike102]

"However, I'm also for good gun control laws! Restrictions should be placed on the type of guns available, amount of guns purchased, and restrictions on where these guns can be carried either concealed or openly!"

We already have these restrictions, with the exception of the number of guns purchased. Some states have it, some don't.

"Making threats against our elected Senators and Congress is they do not adhere to their way of thinking. That is terrorism as defined by the federal government."

And when has this "terrorism" taken place?

PS- I'm a liberal gun-owner too. There are lots of us.

[OdinsEye]

"Restrictions should be placed on the type of guns available,"

There are.

"amount of guns purchased"

Purchase of more than one has to be reported to the BATFE.

"and restrictions on where these guns can be carried either concealed or openly! "

Again, there are.

[Artemis34]

Great post!

I know a place where the government won't bother these folks and they can have as many weapons as they can hold on to:

Somalia!

That is really what they advocate, is anarchy where "the guys with the guns make the rules" as LaPierre says.

[djcrsn]

Don't forget that the Brady Campaign (the organisation that Hennigan works for) is a member of IANSA which supports civilian disarmament

[Muzzlehatch]

As we saw last year, Obama's election scared the piddle out of the gun fetishists. Following his victory, retail armaments dealers were overrun with panicked customers stocking up on guns and ammo for fear that the nasty black man was going to take their second amendment rights away. Now some of them are walking into Obama's sphere of protection, strapped. Okay, now, stay with me for a moment-- if the Obama administration were even half the tyrannical gun-grabbing enterprise they'd have us believe, would not these terrorist-wannabes be on the way to Gitmo by now? If not their local morgue? So, are not these supposed acts of defiance, in fact, evidence that there's nothing to defy? It would appear that Ol' Barack was telling the truth, back during the campaign, when he told rural audiences he wasn't going to take their guns away. Imagine that. The truth won't likely sink in with this crowd, but I'm beginning to think that if they keep this nonsense up it won't require an incident of actual violence to prove to everyone else what fools these particular mortals be.

[hansulrichrudel]

Nothin' to see here folks, just move along.

[mike102]

"Now some of them are walking into Obama's sphere of protection, strapped."

No, they aren't. Nobody with a gun was inside the secure zone set up by the Secret Service. Never have been, never will be. That's why they call it a 'secure zone'. The anti-2nd Amendment bloggers keep failing to mention that. They make it sound like these protesters were waiting in line to walk up and shake Obama's hand.

"Following his victory, retail armaments dealers were overrun with panicked customers stocking up on guns and ammo for fear that the nasty black man was going to take their second amendment rights away."

While he was campaigning, Obama said he did not believe in the individual right to own firearms, so what do you expect? Then he made matters worse by saying only people in certain areas had a right to own guns.

[glockman]

Your attempt at clever pretzel logic is truly mind numbing.

[dkwa]

Actually, I think the Obama administration, and much of the central "core" of the Democratic Party, has fairly consistently opposed armed citizens, in both word and action.

For various reasons, this has been "stealthed", but has hardly gone away.

You may agree or disagree with the goals (I am a "liberal" who supports gun rights), but calling those "paranoid" who find the administration to be "anti-gun" is not entirely honest.

[duxguts]

I thought the guy with the AR-15 was settler out for a stroll.

[GritsJr]

"Every so often, we get a picture -- with crystal clarity -- of the kind of country the radical 'gun rights' crowd wants America to be. It allows us to understand just how much is at stake in the gun control debate."

Spot on, Mr. Hennigan. Thanks for this editorial. It's great to see so many standing up against the unbelievably anti-democratic, treasonous and insurrectionist ideology of the modern gun rights movement. Every voice is critical now in this struggle for our democracy.

[glockman]

You're really funny, have you ever thought about stand up?

[mike102]

"Spot on, Mr. Hennigan. Thanks for this editorial. It's great to see so many standing up against the unbelievably anti-democratic, treasonous and insurrectionist ideology of the modern gun rights movement. Every voice is critical now in this struggle for our democracy."

Anti-democratic? 3/4 of the population, and the vast majority of both houses of Congress believe in the individual right to own firearms. Nearly half of the adult population own guns.

"Treasonous and insurrectionist idealogy?

Now you're letting your emotions get the best of you, which is not unusual for the anti-gun side.

By the way, the United States is a constitutional republic, not a democracy, which was born as the result of "insurectionist idealogy".

[djcrsn]

MIke--I am sure that the people talking the most about insurrection are those that support complete civilian disarmament (I think Grits is irritated because 40 states are shall issue concealed carry and he likes to pretend that the only people qualified to carry firearms around his family are LEOs)

[smeag]

Here is something for lunatic right to think about. I am left, liberal, in a trade union and I am armed. There are more like me than you could possibly imagine. The secon amendment is'nt just for the right.

[JohnRafail]

The inference being that if the "lunatic right" were to stage some kind of armed insurrection, the " liberal, trade union armed left would be capable of matching them gun for gun? Or what are you saying?

[GritsJr]

Could be anyone posting that, John. I wouldn't read too much into it. There have been no mass shootings committed this year by leftist radicals, can't say the same for the other side, though.

[dkwa]

I do not know exactly what he meant. But my initial read was to assume he was pointing out that there are people with "liberal" or "progressive" values who do not find those values to be consistent with gun rights restrictions.

To wit, lefties who are so unsympathetic about those who "question the government" should think back a bit to crackdowns on the 1st and 4th amendment by... oh what's his name... the guy before Obama.

And yes, I'm armed in part to protect myself from right-wing crazies. And left-wing petty criminals in my old neighborhood. And statists in general. ;)

[hansulrichrudel]

Now we even have women with AR-15s. Check out the pic in the story at at he following URL: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0820091twinpeaks1.html

[matteroftruth]

Imagine you are at a town hall meeting where a large number of adults are carrying a handgun and semi-automatic rifle (just because they can) and the Jefferson quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Would you really feel safe there, even with the presence of a few policemen, and voice your supportive opinions on health care? These are vile tactics used by the right wing nuts aiming to stifle democracy pure and simple. I find it ironic that they would justify their display of intimidation and threat as patriotic.

Stop the proliferation of handguns and semi-automatic weapons!!

[JohnRafail]

Well wait, what does one have to do with the other? Why not just stop the proliferation of "adults carrying handguns and semi automatic rifles (just because they can) and quoting Jefferson"?

If there were no fireamrs, wouldn't they just show up with clubs?

[Leifrakur]

Maybe you can authenticate such a stupid Jefferson question? Sounds like just another bogus Jefferson quote invented by the reich-wing.

[Raymond Mills]

It has been proven in many studies that the states with the most restrictive gun laws are also the states that are among the most dangerous. If fact a list just came out with the most dangerous states. Maryland was either number 1 or Number 2 and California was the other 1 or 2. Both of these states have the most restrictive gun laws on the book. So how do you explain that those states that have lax gun laws are safer?

[hansulrichrudel]

If you don't like guns just don't buy and/or shoot any of them!

[NeoconGal]

Is that the same as if you don't want an abortion don't have one.

[ApolloniusofTyana]

Gun nuts will never stop whining!

[hansulrichrudel]

I would think of guns at political meetings as a sort of "Honor Guard".
Not an "Honor Guard" for the politicians but an "Honor Guard" for our Freedom.
Just because a person's skin or rifle is black is not a reason to disparage either one I.M.O.

[glockman]

Neither will anti-gun nuts.

[dkwa]

Well, in truth we are a bit "strident". But that's just because we're *defending* our gun rights. :)

Nothing like being on the defensive to sharpen the edges of one's arguments and views.

If we were truly having "reasonable discussions" on a national level, the tone might be different. I must say, since having joined this political discussion a few years ago, that the lead elements in the anti-gun rights movement (e.g. VPC, Brady Campaign, etc.) have had a singularly political, and often strident approach. At least in press releases.

They may intend well, but they tend to an approach that, to me, clearly signals attack and an emphasis on tactical gains ('getting legislation passed') rather than any real attempt at compromise based on shared societal and political values.

Hence our "whining".

[mike102]

Have you ever read anything on the Brady Campaign's website? And you call us whiners?

We are only here to respond to the never ending whining of the anti-rights crowd.

[djcrsn]

the hoplophobes are doing most of the whining (and please pass the 2 buck Chuck)

[JohnRafail]

"So there you have it. The radical "gun rights" vision of the ideal America. Guns in every corner of American society -- concealed or carried openly for all to see -- threatening our safety and our democracy. For most Americans, the "gun rights" vision is nothing but a nightmare."

If "guns in every corner..." is their vision, hasn't that already been achieved? I remember a USA Today report some time last year that stated there were about 9 guns per every 10 US citizens. That certainly sounds like the country has guns everywhere.

Also, if you are implying that most Americans are not in the "gun rights" crowd, or disagree with them, how do you explain all time lows in support for gun control according to pew research reports that came out last Dec.? Or the practically non existant mention of gun control on Capitol Hill? If most Americans really thought the "gun rights vision" was a "nightmare", wouldn't the opposites be true?

Mr. Henigan can you please respond?

[Leifrakur]

Yes, it’s sadly true that gun interests have successfully sloganized the last half of the Second Amendment as an effective marketing tool to sell their products for private use. But the Framers had something else in mind.

In the Second Amendment’s military context, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is an expression of their right to provide themselves with a well regulated militia consisting of those able to “bear arms,” i.e., consisting of those capable of militia service. If you met your state’s physical and age requirements for militia service you were were counted among those capable of bearing arms. (Being able to “carry arms” was quite a different matter.)

Under the Second Amendment, the federal government was prohibited from infringing the right of the people to the security of a well regulated militia..

[OdinsEye]

"Under the Second Amendment, the federal government was prohibited from infringing the right of the people to the security of a well regulated militia.."

LOL... Wrong.

The militia statement merely shows a reason why the right to arms shall not be infringed. It does not show why or when the right exists.

[mike102]

"Yes, it’s sadly true that gun interests have successfully sloganized the last half of the Second Amendment"

Instead of sloganizing the first half?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, for whatever reason, already existed long before the constitution was written. The 2nd Amendment merely guarantees that the right won't be infringed. The militia is cited as a reason for providing the guarantee.

But, since you are such a big fan of militias, you'll no doubt be pleased to learn that you are in one, as are most people.

Welcome to the 'unorganized militia'.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

And continued mangling of the 2nd Amendment is pointless. It guarantees the individual right to own firearms. Period. Get used to it.

Wait and see what happens when Chicago's gun ban gets to court.

[legaleagle 45]

Leifrakur wrote: "Under the Second Amendment, the federal government was prohibited from infringing the right of the people to the security of a well regulated militia.."

Even if this was the sole purpose, which I believe is incorrect, the fact is that the method employed to protect the well regulated militia was to guarantee an individual right so that each individual could keep arms and bear arms.

[HisXLNC]

"Less visible, that is, until one of the "law abiding citizens" with a concealed carry permit commits a criminal act, like Richard Poplowski shooting and killing three police officers in Pittsburgh, Michael McLendon killing ten people in a rampage through rural Alabama, or George Soldini murdering three women and wounding nine others at a Pittsburgh-area fitness club."

So which authority is responsible for validating permits before one is allowed to go on a shooting spree?

The way you make it sound is that those people would have been less violent without a concealed carry permit.

[mike102]

"Less visible, that is, until one of the "law abiding citizens" with a concealed carry permit commits a criminal act, like Richard Poplowski shooting and killing three police officers in Pittsburgh"

I'd like to know where all of their (Brady Campaign too) concern for cops was, when 5 Philadelphia officers were killed in trhe line of duty last year, every one by a repeat, violent felon.

Most of these anti 2A people are only concerned when a crime is committed by someone who has a CCW permit. If they were concerned about criminals, they wouldn't argue with us when we advocate long jail sentences for violent criminals. Instead, they whine about prison overcrowding.