Guns That Talk
It's like truth or dare. And it's legal.
Get your permit or whatever and you, too, can bring an assault rifle to the next presidential speech you attend. There's nothing the police can do -- amazing! If only the Democrats, back when George Bush was president, had known there was a safe, legal way to protest presidential policy and register discontent with the direction the country was headed. Can you imagine?
I ponder the phenomenon of gun speech -- the amplified malevolence of the inarticulate -- and hope, pray that it fizzles out quickly in its current manifestation: as a presence at town hall meetings on health care, at appearances by President Obama, at any random venue in which the nation's future is being discussed. I fear, however, that this is going to catch on, and if it does, well . . . the line in the sand has been drawn. At what point did public sanity cease to be a value?
Consider what life was like, oh, let's say five years ago. Here's a slice of news from July 4, 2004:
Nicole and Jeff Rank were arrested in Charleston, W.Va. -- handcuffed, hustled away, charged with trespassing -- because they were wearing T-shirts that said "Love America, Hate Bush" on the grounds of the state capitol on the day George Bush was scheduled to make a speech there. The Charleston Gazette further reported that those who applied for tickets to hear Bush's speech "were required to supply their names, addresses, birth dates, birthplaces and Social Security numbers."
That was then: "Free speech zones" were the norm; protesters were routinely whisked out of sight at every Bush appearance, even though, you know, we have a First Amendment and all.
This is now: A dozen guys with guns gathered outside a convention center in Phoenix on Monday as President Obama spoke. At least two of them had assault rifles slung over their shoulders. "Phoenix police said the men carrying guns at Monday's event did not need permits, as the state of Arizona has an 'open carry' law," the U.K. Telegraph reported. "No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested."
A few days earlier, in Portsmouth, N.H., a man with a pistol strapped to his leg, holding a sign that read "It is time to water the tree of liberty," stood outside the local high school where Obama addressed a town hall meeting on health care. Another man was, in fact, arrested in Portsmouth that day because he had a loaded, unlicensed gun in his parked truck.
And, oh yeah, on Aug. 5, at a town hall meeting sponsored by Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, at a supermarket in Douglas, Ariz., a guy carrying a holstered pistol beneath his armpit was escorted off the premises by police when the weapon fell to the floor and bounced as he bent over. He wasn't arrested.
This phenomenon has several layers of tangled complexity: The first concerns the motives of the gun toters. Why would they bring a lethal weapon to a public event? Surely not out of fear for their personal safety. (If you're that scared, just stay home, OK?) They're obviously making a point. The one I'm getting is: See this, punk? I'm not going to kill you, but I could. Yammer all you want, but just be aware that I'm the serious one here. (Those whose weapons were concealed may have been making the same point, but only for their own reassurance of self-worth.)
More troubling and puzzling is the official nonchalance with which these incidents are being met. Considering that, in the Bush era, security personnel at every level were quick to find laws that superseded free speech whenever the president showed his face in public, how can lethal firepower -- more dangerous than a T-shirt -- be tolerated in the vicinity of the president of the United States?
Is it that we fear words and ideas more than inarticulate rage? Is it that there's a soft spot in the American heart for racist simmer? Do armed he-men exhibitionists require maternal coddling? Have we forgotten that four American presidents have been assassinated? Have we crossed the line that separates debate and disagreement from civil war?
Just asking. I don't think we have, but I do think we could. Guns are, indeed, speech: Carry one and you can't help but make an aggressive statement about what you believe and what you are capable of doing. A gun that goes off is something else again, however. It hardly matters whether the firing is accidental or intentional, because the consequences always have the potential to eclipse, tragically, the limited intentions -- the "speech" -- of the shooter.
My prayer is that we find the courage to grope for our common future together, and that the invisible infrastructure of public respect remains intact. This means we must check our weapons, but not our ideas, as we enter the debate.
(Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. You can respond to this column at koehlercw@gmail.com or visit his Web site at commonwonders.com.)
© 2009 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
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
Great post! And I love this: "the amplified malevolence of the inarticulate". This line absolutely captures the essence of these gun toters at town hall meetings.
I do wish the Secret Service would "violate" the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of these indiscretionate loons by hauling them away in the interst of national security.
If it had happened during the Towering Intellect of Dubya your wish would have come true. I wonder why it didn't, really. Some kind of racial profiling?
just once i would like to see a quote from the anti-gunners by the founding fathers which states that the common person has no right to be safe or free from harm and has no right to defend themselves in their home or on their travels from others seeking to deprive them of life or property..
+1
Just once I'd like to see something other than the same tired, lame-a$$ straw man arguments. All those Hollywood movies? They're meant to be entertainment. Why do you view them as documentaries?
We don't.
Ranchero--self defense is one of the most basic fundamental rights there is--and I am one of those that puts precedence on the rights of the VICTIM over the rights of the attacker
"Have we forgotten that four American presidents have been assassinated"
Have you forgotten that none of those assassins were openly carrying guns and waving signs around? It's pretty obvious why they were not doing so, because that would draw obvious attention to yourself.
If you want to kill the president, openly displaying your gun and waving signs is the worst way to go about doing it.
Hear hear!
Fanned.
These gun toting guys are just macho exhibitionists who couldn't get a job performing for Chippendales!
Exactly. But it's not just sexual inadequacy that prompts a male of the species to "carry". It is a feeling of total inadequacy as a man and a fully functioning human being that creates this public need to reassert control over a crowd he otherwise could not deal with. Inability to interact with any but the like-minded keeps relationships superficial and non-threatening. That's a clue as to why the overall numbers of "barricaded suspects" don't seem to be falling.
Right, so in gun control fantasy land, carrying a gun to protect yourself and loved ones is considered "weak", while being a sitting duck for violent criminals is considered "strong".
Go ahead and stay in that absurd little world of yours. It's not a place most of us want anything to do with.
There were no assault rifles being carried, despite what the MSM has been spoon feeding people.
OE--of course you realize that the MSM will find a way (any way) of screwing up the facts in a story involving the lawful carry/use of firearms
It's not guns that are scary, it's the hoplophobes!
Are you sure that was the word you were "shootin'" for?
Yep.
Aside from the Fear, Jealousy, Racism and Hate mixed in the health care reform debate (coming from the Republican radical so-called Christian right) --- What is best for America's Future?
Reminds one of the 60-70's when we had our heads bashed in for Peace Marches...
Aside from the gross generalizations, your post is great. Wait, I guess that means none of your post was great.
I'll tell you one thing that I think would NOT be best for America's future... BANKRUPTCY.
http://www
The most salient point of this post has to do with Bush's "Free Speech Zones." People were whisked away and caged in these so-called free speech zones out of sight and out of mind of Bush and also of the media. Apparently nobody gave a damn.
Today, if all those protestors who showed up at a town hall with anti Obama signs yelling obscenities would be likewise forced into a Free Speech Zone, you can bet that Fox and all the rest of the corporate media wold be covering it and editorializing about how wrong it is and how evil Obama is for having such a thing. Fairness Doctrine anyone?
I agree that the whole 'free speech zone' thing, as well as those protesters mentioned in the blog who were arrested is ridiculous! Actually, beyond ridiculous - shameful and unconstitutional.
Totally opposed to the fairness doctrine though. If implemented on the radio, could lead to implementation on television and on the internet. Bottom line, it was deemed unconstitutional a long time ago.
Intimidation is the name of the game here. Open carriers are trying to scare pro-reform people into staying home. Guns have nothing to do with the health care debate even though most conservatives will link that to a larger government power-grab, where were these same 'concerned citizens' when Bush going crazy with the Patriot Act, Justice Department firings, gov't expenditures over war, signing statements
"Open carriers are trying to scare pro-reform people into staying home."
Not at all.
Even if they're not trying, it's going to have that effect.
If it weren't for the media attention, most people wouldn't even know there were people openly carrying firearms.
If it weren't for the media attention, most people who are openly carrying firearms would not be attending a townhall!
I, for one, am pro gun, and HAVE been railing against Bush for years! You forgot to include the bailouts & the unfunded Medicare bill in the long list of Bush idiocy.
Try to get your terms straight--since assault rifles are by definition select fire (meaning that they are full auto)--they have NEVER been been available on the civilian market under laws passed in 1938, since the first true assault rifles were introduced in the 1940s
Is there an answer in there somewhere -- to people who will now be afraid to bring their children to any political rallies ?????????????????
If you know that, then you know that the majority of semi-automatics on the market can be converted into a full auto by a 12 year old. Please.
LOL... A often repeated but completely incorrect myth. first of all, the BATFE has the power to declare any such firearm to be an NFA Title II firearm, IOW, treated exactly the same as a machine gun itself. Second, the parts to convert a firearm are also treated as NFA Title II devices and strictly controlled .
I would like somebody in the White House to explain why they are letting this spin out of control. I am not in favor of the extreme tactics taken by the Bush administration, but these gun toters shouldn't be tolerated. I am not comforted that they can't get into the area that the president is in, they are putting the public at risk. Seems to me that it is a matter of time before one of these guys who feel tough because they are packing heat to let loose on an Obama supporter. They certainly seem angry and fustrated enough. It shuts down the thin public discourse we still have going. It is an international embarrassment to boot.
I will explain to you. It’s very simple. The Secret Service creates a perimeter around the President. This perimeter moves when the President moves. Within the perimeter a federal law states that land inside the perimeter falls under Federal law. These demonstrators are not within the perimeter, thus are not close enough to the President. That’s why the Secret Service has done nothing to these people. That should answer your first question. It’s that simple. Second the people you should be worried about are the people who are not carrying guns in the open; these are the more likely candidates that would commit a crime against the President. Thus your chicken-little, sky is falling attitude needs to be corrected.
The people toting guns at the demonstrations are doing it to make a statement, that’s the simple fact. You ask “why a gun”, because Obama is perceived as a gun grabber. If Obama was against, let me say “ice cream”, I would surely expect people outside the rally holding up their ice cream cones making a statement. You probably think ice cream is a lot different than a rifle, a rifle can kill you and ice cream can’t. Sane rationality would say yes, but in New York City they would say ice cream kills too, because of all those Trans Fats. So all said, don’t be scared on the gun toting protesters, they are just exercising their 1st and 2nd Bill of Rights.
Obama is perceived as a gun grabber huh? Why is that? He's said absolutely nothing about guns- other than he's NOT going to take them. These people are not making a political stand about the Second Amendment, and we all (those of us with sense) know that. They are anarchists plain and simple. People with your attitutde are going to get innocent people (hopefully not the POTUS) killed.
Yes... ice cream... people... always trying to take it away from you!!
http://www
Ren & Stimpy in "Space Madness"
Patent nonsense. Did you even read the blog post? It is not simply about amendment rights, and you have to know that. Nothing is ever simple in the manner that you are attempting to portray it. Yours is a classic tactic that attempts to negate an argument by avoiding it. It is a classic Bushism and also a favoured behavior of toddlers. Please come back with something more cogent.
I agree.....
I'm not anti-gun, I own them. But I'm not stupid enough to take one to a town hall meeting!
Sometimes ignorance breeds contempt, you're seeing it at these meetings.
Where is the FBI ?? Not doing their job again ??
The FBI is not in charge of such things. The USSS and state and local police are. None of them had any problem with what was being done. The men were nowhere near the President and were in full compliance with the law.
Frankly, I don't give a DAMN about international embarrassment. I am so sick of hearing the far left apologize for America that it makes sick. The US is different than the rest of the world. INTENTIONALLY. That is what makes us great. If you don't like it, leave.
Free speech IS a huge danger to the right wing.
Guns, and even an assassination, are not a huge danger to progressives as a movement. Just a change of leadership to Biden.
If the righty haters were to do the awful thing they are implying by bringing their guns, they would actually do grave harm to their own cause, and to the permissive gun laws they so love. They would show the logical conclusions of their hate speech and actions.
Bring guns implies "what". That they have what it takes to stand up for what they believe in.
I would make this statement for anybody that went to protest what they think is wrong. The difference with you is that you are blinded by political bias. You think that a gun owner is automatically a Conservative, I think not.
Take my comparison. 120 years ago carrying a gun on any street in America was the social norm. Over time carrying a gun on the street went against that social norm. I would say that was a "progressive" movement for non-gun owners, true. Today, carrying a gun on the streets is not the social norm, true, but today there is a "progressive" movement towards open carry in public. Do you think 120 years ago that all gun carriers where "evil" conservative, I would guess not? Before you quote a ant-gun stat. With more gun laws that where created over that last 120 years, more people per population die today of gun related deaths then they did 120 years ago. I would ask you to look it up, but your hate for me is probably blinding you once more.
Finally, "progressive" "not progressive" that’s just a label for somebody that likes to argue semantics.
It's not about people carrying concealed weapons. This NEVER happened when Bush Vol 2 was in office. Why? Thinking people know because it's obvious. Gun lovers are so blinded by their imperception of practicality that they're defending people who want to overthrow a democratically elected government in a democratic republic. This is not about the Second Amendment. lt's about anarchy and anti-democracy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
