It's Time to Stop Carrying Guns to Town-Hall Meetings

With each passing moment, the nation grows more polarized as Washington's partisan bickering becomes ever more combative. Nowhere is this more evident than with the health care debate. It has become a touchstone for discontent over the Obama administration's aggressive attempts to push through health care reform, the government's out-of-control spending, the loss of civil liberties and the fact that government leaders are not listening. Understandably, many Americans are very frustrated.

This frustration has spawned lively -- and often angry -- protests at town hall meetings across the country, marked by Americans wielding protest signs and demanding to be heard. According to the Associated Press, "Many of those raising their voices and fists at the [health care] town halls have never been politically active."

Although this is a healthy sign of democracy in action, critics have denounced the protesters for their disruptive behavior and likened them to angry mobs. However, the First Amendment does not require civility -- merely free speech, and whether we like it or not, yelling and offensive signs are part of that.

What is not healthy and is, in fact, downright stupid are the handfuls of protesters who have recently taken to carrying guns along with them to these free speech rallies. For example, one man showed up at a rally in Portsmouth, N.H., with a protest sign and a loaded handgun strapped to his thigh. In Phoenix, Ariz., about a dozen people brought guns to a health-care rally. One man actually had an AR-15 assault rifle slung over his shoulder. When asked why he had guns with him, the man reportedly responded, "Because I can do it. In Arizona, I still have some freedoms left."

Free speech and the right to bear arms are protected by the United States Constitution. But bringing a loaded gun to a free speech rally is not a wise or prudent exercise of one's Second Amendment right to bear arms. All it will do is endanger innocent lives and discredit these kinds of activist movements. For instance, while these gun-toting protesters may be few in number, they are already being identified with the protest movement as a whole.

Here's the bottom line: there are basically only two reasons for carrying a gun in America -- to protect yourself or to go hunting. But there is no valid reason for carrying a gun to these town hall meetings. It will only increase the police presence. And as I've said many times before, there is no way the average citizen armed with a gun can challenge the modern police officer who is armed to the teeth with even bigger guns, assault vehicles, battering rams, ballistic shields, "flashbang" grenades, smoke grenades, pepper spray and tear gas, to name just some of local law enforcement's arsenal. The average citizen simply has no defense against that kind of weaponry. And it would be foolish to think otherwise.

However, this does not mean that we, as citizens, are powerless. Our power rests in our ability to protest and foment change. As the Associated Press recently reported, "The emerging protest movement is almost the mirror image of the grass-roots campaign that helped sweep Obama into office by pulling in people who'd never been politically active. This time Obama is seeing the other side of what can happen when people are motivated, connect over the Internet and seemingly reach a tipping point that turns them from onlookers into activists."

Our power also rests in our ability to speak truth to power -- even shout truth to power. People have a right to shout. And they have a right to be extremist in their speech. As despicable as it seems, they have a right to carry a sign that says "Death to Obama" if they disagree with him. To maintain our free speech rights in general, we have to protect these forms of extremist speech as well.

Martin Luther King Jr. is a case in point. Although he advocated nonviolent change, King was often labeled an extremist. To many Americans, King's arguments and protests for equality were seen as threatening. Thus, calling someone extremist is a relative value. It depends on who's doing the labeling.

This brings me back to the gun-toting protesters at the health care rallies. It's time for cooler heads to prevail. The frustration level in this country is already at an all-time high. All it will take is one stupid, violent act for these town halls to be closed down by the government. And that will mean the destruction of free speech. That's why the gun-toting has to stop.

We certainly don't want a handful of foolish people to destroy something that up to this point has been very healthy for our democracy. After all, the democratic process works best when critical discourse is allowed. That's why the First Amendment is so important. It works as a steam valve, allowing radicals to blow off steam and air their views. This facilitates against radicals going underground and becoming terrorists.

Democracy can only survive by active participation of its citizenry. Lest we forget, the Constitution opens with those three beautiful words "we the people," and we must do all we can to protect the rights of "we the people" to express themselves freely. Thus, whether or not you agree with the behavior at these town hall meetings, at least these protesters have taken the time to turn their televisions off, step outside their houses and get active in the governmental process.

Comments

[Jul]

While I agree with this article, I think it's pretty tame and tiptoeing around a glaring issue. If the same people who were carrying guns were wearing turbans and looked like Iraqi's, do you think any person in that place would've let them exercise their "rights" just because "they can?" It's terrorism, whether it's an American or any country we're allegedly fighting terrorism with. Why do we tolerate this behavior? Carrying a gun to intimidate is not freedom of speech. It's terrorism. Funny how the exact people who support the "war on terrorism" have, in fact, become them themselves.

[lovable]

if this were bush fox and all the conservatives bigots like limbaugh/ malkin and the rest would be going crazy.
but since its obama its ok .

WHEN WILL THE MEDIA REALIZE THAT OBAMA COLOR MAKES THESE ARGUMENT MORE MAGNIFIED AND THERE IS A CERTAIN ELEMENRT OUT THERE - FOX AND OTHERS WHO HOPE SOMETHING HAPPENS ALL BECAUSE OBAMA IS BBLACK!!!!!!!
THIS WAS NOT EVEN ALLOWED WITH CLINTON.
WHITE SUPREMECY TALK LIVES IN FOX AND LIMBAUGH / BECK AND THE OTHERS.

[OdinsEye]

Which explains the Black fellow with the AR-15 how?

[lady49]

He wasn't black....m­elanocytes in oyur epithelial layerl does not CONSTITUTE blackness

[Rojellio]

Its not that big of a deal. In poor taste, and inappropriate.. perhaps. If it bothers you that you can carry openly in Arizona, please don't ever move there or visit.

Its just an AR15. The guy to worry about is keeping a low profile, 1/2 mile away with a much bigger more accurate rifle.

I am A Jews For Protection of Firearms Ownership member. All in favor of gun control..raise you right hand ! ; )

[OdinsEye]

"One man actually had an AR-15 assault rifle slung over his shoulder. "

It was not an assault rifle.

"there are basically only two reasons for carrying a gun in America -- to protect yourself or to go hunting"

Or because you want to. Or to make a political statement, much the same as flag burning.

"And as I've said many times before, there is no way the average citizen armed with a gun can challenge the modern police officer who is armed to the teeth with even bigger guns, assault vehicles, battering rams, ballistic shields, "flashbang" grenades, smoke grenades, pepper spray and tear gas, to name just some of local law enforcement's arsenal. The average citizen simply has no defense against that kind of weaponry. And it would be foolish to think otherwise."

As a cop, and a retired military combat vet, I can say with some expertise, it is your statement which is foolish.

[gs-425]

Which gun are we talking about...the radio stunt or the one that was 3 blocks away from where the president was to speak in few hours? Which the later didn't show up until the carrier and his friend where assaulted by union members.

[CaptainStormfield]

Funny it all is.. The first thing that Wyatt Earp or Bill Hickock did when they took over a town
was to post a "No Guns in Town" ordinance.

[OdinsEye]

Only applied to a couple towns, only affected people from out of town (locals kept their firearms), only applied at certain times of the year (example cattle drives), and only lasted a few years.

[Thirdpower]

You do realize that the individual w/ the "Assault Rifle" (which it wasn't) had contacted the authorities beforehand and that the Secret Service was well aware of it. There was no 'challenging of the police'. Both the SS and WH have said it was no big deal.

What's happening is exactly what the protesters wanted. An overreaction by the media.

[CaptainStormfield]

http://www.alternet.org/rights/142123/terror_from_the_right%3A_75_plots%2C_conspiracies_and_racist_rampages_since_oklahoma_city/

Terror from the Right: 75 Plots, Conspiracies and Racist Rampages Since Oklahoma City

[CaptainStormfield]

http://www.alternet.org/rights/142123/terror_from_the_right%3A_75_plots%2C_conspiracies_and_racist_rampages_since_oklahoma_city/?page=1

Review this list of what the MIlitia's and Christian Zealots have been up to.
The people with rifles at the Arizona town hall were reported to be part of
the Viper Militia.

You figure it out.

[OdinsEye]

"The people with rifles at the Arizona town hall were reported to be part of
the Viper Militia. "

Incorrect. The REPORTER is a SUPPORTER of the Viper Militia, but was never a member.

[eyelashviper]

Thank you for the link and info...

[propitiousmoment]

1. Even in the wild west, they took off their guns when they went into the saloon. But our wild-west-wannabes don't have the good manners of their alleged forbears.

2. "As the Associated Press recently reported, "The emerging protest movement is almost the mirror image of the grass-roots campaign that helped sweep Obama into office by pulling in people who'd never been politically active. This time Obama is seeing the other side of what can happen when people are motivated, connect over the Internet and seemingly reach a tipping point that turns them from onlookers into activists."
-- Not a mirror image of the Obama movement in any way, shape, or form. These idiots are bought and paid for by corporate interests. Ever hear of the term "astro-turf"? Kind of not the same thing as actual grass-roots. And furthermore, they are turned away from events where the true movers and shakers of their "movement" are meeting- they are mere pawns in somebody else's game, and they don't even know it. Obama supporters, during the election and after, are ordinary people persuaded by the man's message and leadership abilities. No comparison whatsoever.

[OdinsEye]

"Even in the wild west, they took off their guns when they went into the saloon."

According to whom? BTW, the saloons were private property. Owner's rules applied. Not the same as standing out on public property or on someone else's private property across the street.

[Rojellio]

Yes I have heard the Term "AstroTurf". As I recall, the filthy animal who coined the phrase to describe the activity he often engaged in... David Axelrod. Your side does it too. Apparently you lot are jealous when Republicans do it.

[NotStarvingArtist]

"As despicable as it seems, they have a right to carry a sign that says "Death to Obama" if they disagree with him. "

Although I agree with most of this article, I strongly disagree with the one statement quoted above. "Death to Obama" is a threat against our President and should be treated as such. Democracy does not demand the deaths of people we disagree with. If you do not like the policies of our President or the current administration, vote him and it out of office at your next opportunity. For now, you lost the last election and he gets his four years to govern. That's democracy in action.

[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

[gs-425]

I didn't see any gun.

[lbrty 2112]

Not a mention of the armed Black Panthers at the 2000 state GOP Convention in Texas. How do you feel about billy clubs outside of polling stations on election day??

PS the man in AZ had a 'semi-automatic' AR-15. If it were an 'assualt' rifle he would have been arrested for carrying a machine gun, which for all intents and purposes are illegal. The distinction is critical.

[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.

[lbrty 2112]

hans, you misunderstand. My comment has nothing to do with race (I get pulled out of line in every airport I go to for my olive complexion and poor shaving habits). I was rather pointing out the difference in the way things are reported when the issue happens on the other side of the political fence. Have you heard about either incident I mentioned?

[JustMyWords]

No, he would not have been arrested for carrying a machine gun. An assault rifle and a machine gun are two different things - an assault rifle is a semi-automatic weapon, a machine gun is fully automatic. And a machine gun is not illegal "for all intents and purposes." They are illegal, the end, with the exception of a very difficult to obtain federal license.

[Glocksf21]

An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting in both fully automatic and semi automatic modes). Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies, having largely superseded or supplemented larger and more powerful battle rifles such as the M14, FN FAL and the Heckler & Koch G3. Examples of assault rifles include the M16 rifle, AK-47, M4 carbine, and the Steyr AUG.

[OdinsEye]

"An assault rifle and a machine gun are two different things - an assault rifle is a semi-automatic weapon, a machine gun is fully automatic. "

You are confusing assault rifles and assault weapons.

Assault RIFLES are full-autos like the military M-16.

Assault WEAPONS have been defined as certain semi-autos like the civilian AR-15.

[CaptainStormfield]

Trying to nit pick about "oh its not an assault weapon" is pretty lame.
Whats the point of hanging around where the President is with a weapon
designed for killing people? The point is to intimidate.

[lbrty 2112]

'designed for killing people'?? isn't that a loaded statement? Are knives 'designed for killing people'??

Cars?

Hammers?

Bare hands??

[gs-425]

You know what is lame? Making a bid deal of a radio stunt.

[Jul]

How silly. There's no difference between an AR-15 and a machine gun. They both do one job: kill. That's what they're made for. Intimidation and threats are the purpose, plain and simple. Doesn't matter if they look different and different sizes and different bullets. It's terrorism, plain and simple.

[djcrsn]

There is one major difference--the AR fires 1 round per trigger pull and machine guns fire multiple rounds

[ptgkc]

I long for those simple days. Where only invited guests could get into an event. Where even getting close to an event with a protest slogan on a t-shirt got you a one way ticket to the "free speech zone", miles away from the cameras. Shouted down as un-American and a terrorist the whole time.

Wait, that was only a few years ago. Are they the same people carrying the guns? Yet, they are patriots?

The right wing is a lost cause, but remind the independents that have only a passing interest of the incredible double standard.

I have to take issue with the "Death to Obama" as free speech. That's a threat and against the law. Impeach Obama, the Chosen One, a Nazi - fine protected if not disgusting. However, the threat is not.

[RobinSeattle]

How come Whitehead's bio doesn't mention the Rutherford Institute's connection to the religious right? That would have given his argument here even more force.

The institute is named after a 17th century Scottish pastor known for his defiance of the king, according to this site: http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9406/rutherford.html

He was also allied with Frank Schaeffer, one of the founders of the Christian Right. "Abortion clinics must be picketed nonstop. Doctors who wish to murder the innocent must be harassed and driven from our communities." is one of Whitehead's more notorious positions.

Thus, I see Whitehead's post as attempting to do two things: one, to convince liberals and moderates that not all conservatives are nuts; two, to express the Republican establishment's discomfort with certain elements of its base and to try to get them to cool their jets.