Don’t. Just don’t.
By Thoreau
Regarding the man photographed with a pistol on his hip at a protest today:
I support the second amendment. I assume that he was obeying the law. (I am willing to be corrected on that point.) I support the right to protest (just look at my screen name). I assume that his intentions were nonviolent. And while we can have a healthcare debate some other time, let’s just say that I am at least sympathetic to opposition to some of the healthcare proposals under consideration.
Be that as it may…
Do not bring a firearm to a protest, even a firearm that is being carried in full compliance with the law, unless the point of the protest is to make some sort of statement about lawful firearm ownership. Otherwise, leave it at home. Period. Yes, I support his right to do that, but I also have the free speech right to say that he’s being an idiot. The government hates protestors of every ideological bent and is always looking for pretexts. Carrying a firearm gives them a pretext. Protestors with guns, even lawfully carried guns, give them all the more excuse to herd protestors into “free speech zones” and put up even more layers of security. It doesn’t matter if what he was doing was lawful. Plenty of lawful activities nonetheless give them a pretext.
Also, protests need to be on message. OK, so you’re a libertarian who wants to make a point about the second amendment. Great. Go to a protest against gun control. Don’t make your second amendment point at a protest about health care policy. You know how liberals start off with an anti-war protest and next thing you know there are signs about race, vegetarianism, the environment, abortion, economics, Mumia, and ten million other things? You know how everybody makes fun of them? Take a fucking hint. Go to the healthcare protest and make your point about healthcare, not the second amendment. (Ditto to liberals. Want to make a point in favor of healthcare reform? Don’t carry signs in favor of gun control.)
Finally, some will wonder why a guy who takes his screen name from a famous dissident is criticizing a protestor. Original Recipe Thoreau wanted to make a point, so he withheld his financial support from the state and wrote an essay that got attention and influenced a lot of people. He made his point with eloquence. There is a time and a place for civil disobedience. That’s cool. That’s also completely different from acts that make things worse rather than better. The dissident who changes minds is completely different from the idiot who gives them a pretext.
Comment by CaseyL —
August 11, 2009 @ 11:00 pm
You left out the part where the idiot also carried a sign with that famous partial Jefferson quote about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants. Oh, the gun-toting idiot had a point to make, all right, and it had nothing to do with healthcare. It had to do with provoking a response. He no doubt hoped very terribly much to be arrested and photographed being hauled away. It must have disappointed him that, while the Secret Service kept a very close eye on him, he was otherwise left alone. He was NOT kicked out of the town hall; he was NOT set upon by goons in “Secret Service” costumes; and he was not arrested.
Compare and contrast that with the folks who used to get kicked out, beat up, and arrested just for having anti-Bush bumper stickers on their cars or T-shirts on their persons.
Comment by Karen —
August 11, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
THANK YOU. Stick To The Point is really good advice in general, and especially important with regard to protests. When I was more active with NARAL and Planned Parenthood I always explained that our demonstrations and meetings were about reproductive rights, not animal rights, gun control, Tibet, freeing Mumia (that one especially) or any other vaguely leftish issue. Bringing all the other stuff, no matter how meritorious, only gives people disposed to oppose us an excuse to pick a fight and turns off people who might agree with us but opposed those other issued.
Comment by TGGP —
August 12, 2009 @ 2:35 am
Thoreau also burned downed some woods he was camping out in while cooking, so there were also ways in which he made things worse.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 12, 2009 @ 2:48 am
That was the pretext they used to confine him to a Free Speech Pond in Walden: Fire hazard.
Comment by absence of something —
August 12, 2009 @ 4:45 am
Do we know for certain this guy wasn’t a north korean agent? Kims’ master plan to destabilise the US, starting with the secretary of state seems to be gathering pace.
Seriously though, no good can come from this. I predict more protesters will be inspired to exercise their rights,then it takes just one lunatic or a jumpy secret service man to create a martyr.
Comment by Rojo —
August 12, 2009 @ 6:25 am
While I am somewhat sympathetic to your point here, I also feel compelled to point out similar sentiments can and have been used to try to shut down legitimate points of view that are indeed directly related to the issue at hand. The best example I can think of is liberal groups trying to keep pro-Palestinian messages out anti-Iraq war protests. But, if you’re an anti-imperialists, the two issues are directly connected. You must talk about one if you are going to talk about the other.
Would it be legitimate to say that signs opposing US military basing agreements with Colombia should be kept out of protests against Obama and Clinton coddling the Honduras coup? I don’t think so.
Comment by VM —
August 12, 2009 @ 8:25 am
Hay Doktor T:
what about if we’re protesting dentists (since they’re sorta like evil fiziks types), and we start protesting wimpy brit sailors and iranians and “what a guy” dienstag?
Comment by dhex —
August 12, 2009 @ 8:36 am
“But, if you’re an anti-imperialists, the two issues are directly connected.”
not if you’re an anti-imperialist isolationist!
otherwise, yeah. i figure they mostly left him alone because a) he didn’t do anything stupid and b) it would have created the most perfect-est martyr ever for these guys.
Comment by dhex —
August 12, 2009 @ 9:16 am
on the other hand, all the whining about how “scary” this guy was is pretty much like watching a stereotype come to life and offer you some chai tea.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 12, 2009 @ 9:35 am
The reason the anti-war rallies turned into lefty free-for-alls was because International ANSWER was deliberately trying to divert them. Communist groups do this all the time, whenever there is a popular movement on the left.
The first rally is against the war.
The second rally is against the war, animal testing, abortion restrictions, racism, sexism, imperialism, biotech foods, and international capitalism.
The third rally is against international capitalism.
Comment by Barry —
August 12, 2009 @ 10:38 am
IIRC, this guy was at a meeting with Obama present. I’d like to point out that during the Bush administration he’d have been arrested long, long before getting near there – *if* he was lucky. Frankly, I’d have bet that the only reason that somebody like that wouldn’t have been shot by a sniper back then was that the police on the scene would have seen the pistol first, and would have tackled him.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 12, 2009 @ 11:23 am
VM-
I vaguely recall what you’re referring to. All I can say is, DROP THE CHALUPA!
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
August 12, 2009 @ 11:33 am
It must have disappointed him that, while the Secret Service kept a very close eye on him, he was otherwise left alone.
But he did get interviewed by Chris Matthews. That probably softened the blow.
Comment by norbizness —
August 12, 2009 @ 11:46 am
I blame Yosemite Sam.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 12, 2009 @ 11:56 am
Rojo,
Sure, lots of issues are connected to each other, and there’s no hard and fast rule for how close the connection should be (or at least how close they should be in the eyes of the target audience), but in general it’s best to be clearly on-message.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 12, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
Regarding the Secret Service, I have to admit that I’m surprised how much difference an administration makes. Leaving aside any skepticism I’ve expressed on Obama and civil liberties, I thought that “free speech zones” and whatnot were Just The Way Things Are Done These Days. They existed in some form before Bush, although not nearly as bad, and the general trend in law enforcement is to contain protests.
Plus, on matters of security, it usually sounds like the President takes orders from the Secret Service and not the other way around. There was something in the news a while back about Obama saying to the Secret Service “It’s a short walk from the airplane to the building, why do I have to take the limo?” but they refused to let him walk. So I figured that they’d just say “This is the security envelope we need to put in place, let us do our jobs” and that would be that on free speech zones.
Comment by Eddie —
August 12, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
OK, so you’re a libertarian who wants to make a point about the second amendment. Great. Go to a protest against gun control.
Good advice, except there is no referendum on gun control on Obama or anyone’s agenda. It’s a no issue. So a “libertarian” with a gun at a protest is looking to make trouble due almost exclusively to the arguments in his head. This is Travis Bickle territory.
Comment by GinSlinger —
August 12, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Huh?
Not taking this guy’s side as my own, and agreeing nearly 100% with thoreau here, but “gun control” is always on someone’s agenda.
Comment by Barry —
August 12, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
GinSlinger, a major theme of the comments here was that just because an issue exists doesn’t mean that it should get any billing in a particular protest.
Comment by Barry —
August 12, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Comment by Thoreau —
“Regarding the Secret Service, I have to admit that I’m surprised how much difference an administration makes. ”
I’m being cynical here (and probably rather accurate), but I think a huge chunk of it’s the change in polarities here. Does anybody think that a liberal protesting against Bush and (legally) carrying a handgun would *not* be taking his life in his hands?
If that liberal were shot dead by police/SS guys, would the elite MSM support/go along with or oppose the killing?
Now, ask yourself what would have happened if the police/SS acted just now as they would have a few years ago? The guy would be a martyr, his tragic story told non-stop on Fox, CNBC and the AM radio spectrum; there’d be a Senate fillibuster until a special prosecutor was appointed, and the leaders of the right would have a very, very hard time keeping the sh*t-eating grins off of their faces.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 12, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Barry,
I don’t think it would be quite that bad, but, yeah, a liberal protestor with a lawfully carried firearm would never get within a mile of a different administration. It’s impossible for us to say for sure how much of this is the Secret Service’s decision and how much is the administration’s decision, but both of them are making the same “How badly will this blow up in our face?” calculation.
Comment by dhex —
August 12, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
“Does anybody think that a liberal protesting against Bush and (legally) carrying a handgun would *not* be taking his life in his hands?”
maybe? were there any similar incidents?
again, i think people are overlooking the more obvious concern that arresting – much less taser-cizing – someone at one of these events would hurt obama’s cause. outside of energizing some less hinged folks with either “the crazies are finally getting what they deserve! now we can have a dialogue!” or “holy shit the government has the power to kill people! this is bad!”
i don’t think this restraint is because he – or any president – gives two shits about free speech. the disruptions play into their strategy quite nicely.
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
August 12, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
“Protestors with guns, even lawfully carried guns, give them all the more excuse to herd protestors into ‘free speech zones’ and put up even more layers of security.”
We mustn’t exercise our rights because that will give them an excuse to violate our right?
Bullshit. If they don’t have an excuse, they’ll just make one up.
Using your logic, nobody should have been exercising their freedom of speech (chants and signs) or the press (fliers) or religion (publicly praying) in that area, either.
The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right, and it also happens to be constitutionally protected. Those who are uncomfortable seeing others exercise it should do what we’re expected to do when people exercise their other rights — get over it.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 12, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Exercise your rights whenever you want. But if you want to send a message, sometimes it’s best to focus. I just argued above for being selective about the exercise of free speech rights: If you’re going to a protest on policy A, waving around signs about policy B won’t help. Do you have the right to wave signs on policy B? Of course. Would I defend your right to do so if that right is threatened? Absolutely. Would I also say it’s stupid to exercise your right that way? Yes.
If he were exercising his right in any other context, I wouldn’t be criticizing him right now.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 12, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
As a Democrat, I second, third, and fourth this emotion among my very good friends across the aisle. I urge as many of you as possible to bring firearms as you scream “NAZI!!! NAZI!!!” and shout down your political opponents at these rallies, preferably as close to the cameras as possible.
If anyone objects, wave the gun around, talk about it being a basic human right, and tell them “Get over it.”
Also, I do not wish to be hurled bodily into a briar patch.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 12, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Never let it be said that joe doesn’t support the second amendment rights of conservatives and libertarians.
He also supports our right to even the most offensive speech, because he values the first amendment just as much as the second.
Comment by Barry —
August 13, 2009 @ 8:47 am
22 Dhex:”maybe? were there any similar incidents?”
No, of course not. However, if wearing the wrong t-shirt or lapel pin is grounds for arrest….
Comment by Barry —
August 13, 2009 @ 8:52 am
Thoreau:
“Barry,
I don’t think it would be quite that bad, but, yeah, a liberal protestor with a lawfully carried firearm would never get within a mile of a different administration. It’s impossible for us to say for sure how much of this is the Secret Service’s decision and how much is the administration’s decision, but both of them are making the same “How badly will this blow up in our face?” calculation.”
We do have some basis for comparison – in the late 1990’s, people who remember their history remember that there was something called the ‘OK City bombing’. IIRC, 168 people killed by right-wing terrorists.
At that time, there were large groups of people organizing to overthrow the US government, calling themselves ‘militias’.
How many were shot by police afterwards?
Few, if any.
Now, imagine if the militias were left-wingers, and the OK City bombing was done by leftists. I believe that the only question then would be triple- or quadruple-digit police killings.
[further note - in the 1960's, this was put to the test, with both black/white leftits and white rightwing terrorists; the police quite eagerly killed many leftists, but 0 right-wingers]
Comment by Tom Scudder —
August 13, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Joe’s advice at #25 is wise, but he neglected an important element in attracting the right kind of media attention: giant puppets. Ideally, giant puppets carrying real firearms.
Comment by dhex —
August 13, 2009 @ 10:59 am
We do have some basis for comparison – in the late 1990’s, people who remember their history remember that there was something called the ‘OK City bombing’. IIRC, 168 people killed by right-wing terrorists.
At that time, there were large groups of people organizing to overthrow the US government, calling themselves ‘militias’.
How many were shot by police afterwards?
depends on what you’d count. they’d count the weaver standoff, the branch davidians, the infiltrations by the fbi, etc.
i’m not sure about this shooting hundreds of leftists thing. it’s a bit jesus-y for my tastes. it’s not like the bushies didn’t have their chances, after all, but the bulk of what they got out of it was a bunch of goofballs they themselves supplied bombs to.
if you really want to take a lesson from all of this, i guess, is that moving to idaho and building a compound that’s heavily defended will keep your body count low, though you will be arrested regardless.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 11:25 am
I joke, but I’m afraid that this wacko with his sidearm – gee, I guess he didn’t want the police- and Secret Service-heavy crowd to be helpless in case of a spree shooter – actually represents and escalation of the campaign of intimidation among the…what are calling them? TeaDeathers?
First FreedomWorks arranges mobs to disrupt town halls. Then groups on the left show up so they can’t be shouted down. Next thing you know, the intertubes are full of threats from the right about “defending our First Amendment rights with our Second Amendment rights.” And then people – rightists, actually – start showing up at these town halls armed.
I don’t like it.
Comment by dhex —
August 13, 2009 @ 11:33 am
this will make you feel better:
http://www.alternet.org/politics/141929/7_ways_we_can_fight_back_against_the_rising_fascist_threat/
actually, i think most of the “i’m afraid of the mob” stuff is bullshit. it’s a great way for people to feel like victims, but for all the bushitler, effigy burning and the like there was very little, if any, actual violence from anti-war protesters over the last eight years. there will be very little, if any, actual violence in this case as well; any acts of violence in the meantime (like the holocaust shooter) will be grouped together, much like the black bloc is the face of the anti-g8 groups.
Comment by dhex —
August 13, 2009 @ 11:34 am
admittedly, there is a kind of poetry in these “town hall meetings” being disrupted by “protesters”. a potemkin village getting knocked over by a potemkin mob, or some such rot.
i didn’t say it was good poetry.
Comment by ajay —
August 13, 2009 @ 11:37 am
dhex: the Weaver business and the Waco siege both occurred before the Oklahoma City bombing, and thus could not really have been a result of it.
And I don’t really think it’s a dangerous infringement of civil rights to arrest someone who shows up to meet a black president carrying a) a loaded gun and b) a sign with a very famous justification for committing violence against the legitimate government.
Comment by dhex —
August 13, 2009 @ 11:58 am
dhex: the Weaver business and the Waco siege both occurred before the Oklahoma City bombing, and thus could not really have been a result of it.
the gubmint had obviously been making inroads in those types of groups for a long time (the groups in question would likely say “forever”).
of course, i’ve heard it argued that okc pushed the government to “back off”, largely because clinton semi-apologized for the waco massacre a half-decade later. nutty.
but to your latter point: the bushites would say the free speech zones kept president bush safe; after all, some of those protesters had signs with swastikas! and were aligned with communism, which is inherently dangerous!
the language is getting very mid 90s – just check that alternet story – which i find alarming not because of the threat of small incidents of violence (let’s face it; compared to inter-gang warfare this stuff is peanuts) but because that narrative the last time around gave us patriot act 1.0.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Wow, you really a douche, aren’t you?
Fuck you.
I’ve been hearing about how much I’m enjoying my “pretend” impression of violence since…oh, when was it? Since the Secret Service decided the death threats Obama was getting justified that largest and earliest protective detail any candidate had ever received? (The Secret Service just likes to feel like victims, too.) Or maybe since Dr. Tiller’s murder. Or maybe since the massacre in the Unitarian Church by a big Rush Limbaugh fan. Or maybe the murders of the two police officer by another “liberty-lover” in Pittsburgh.
Yeah, it’s all in my head, and I’m enjoying it, just like I enjoyed reading about deaths in Iraq. I’m just faking it, because nobody except dhex actually believes things honestly.
Douche.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
This guy had a fucking firearm, you idiot! Not a sign!
Yeah, it is. The violent, armed people are talking about how the other side is totally starting it, and the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed.
But, just like the mid-90s, there really isn’t any actual threat. Oh, no, that’s all made up by people who like to feel like victims.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Here’s David Frum, Bush speechwriter, as he enjoys feeling like a victim.
http://www.theweek.com/bullpen/column/99474/The_reckless_Right_courts_violence
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
I feel dirty agreeing with a Bush speechwriter.
I don’t think we’re going to see any large-scale or organized violence. But a nutjob with a gun could start a stampede at a heated townhall, even if he doesn’t fire it. And, as Frum hints at the bottom of the column, those who stir the mob are just setting themselves up to lose credibility in any sort of reasoned debate.
Comment by Kolohe —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Stating that the secret service modifies their procedures based on the politics of the person their protecting is pure calumny.
Wherever this guy was he was outside whatever permiter the secret service had set up. That perimeter would have been the same for a President McCain as well.
And thanks a lot for making me go to Donero’s site to figure out what the heck y’all are talking about. (it was the 1st google hit for ‘person with sidearm at obama protest’)
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Stampede at a town hall is one possibility.
I’m more worried about what they’ll do when the bill – no matter how watered dow – passes. McVeigh was waring a “Tree of Liberty” tee-shirt when he was arrested, and now these people are telling each other they need to “defend” themselves against “thugs” and “Nazis.”
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Maybe everyone’s talking past each other here.
If there are liberals who fear some sort of large-scale violence from the right, I think those fears are shear paranoia, and dhex is right to criticize.
OTOH, a few lone nutjobs can punch above their weight in terms of creating problems if done in a high profile manner. I think that fear is justified.
Any violence that some nut might inflict is, statistically speaking, not worth worrying about. You’re more likely to get in a car accident on the way to the town hall meeting. OTOH, all it takes is one nut to do something that (1) harms a lot of people and (2) produces awful political fallout (e.g. Patriot Act 2.0).
A nutjob can act at any time, of course, and he doesn’t need Glenn Beck’s permission to do so. But I can’t deny that when the pot gets stirred, the crazies get active.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Kolohe-
Maybe it isn’t Secret Service. Maybe it’s the local cops. All I know is that for 8 years if you wanted to carry a sign critical of the President you were likely to be sent to a “free speech zone” more than a mile away. Now? Apparently not.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Thoreau,
One thing to remember about Bush’s security is that there were always private security and campaign volunteers posing as security at his events.
There was one famous case of two attendees being kicked out of a Bush events because they had an anti-war sticker on their care. Although the people who kicked them out were wearing ear pieces and identified themselves as Secret Service, it turned out that they were just Bush political people wearing dark suits and ear pieces, pretending to be Secret Service. The actual Secret Service didn’t know anything about the removal.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
I’m surprised that Secret Service tolerated people going around posing as Secret Service. That’s the sort of environment where a genuine security threat might be able to slip in and harm somebody.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
OH NO Not a gun! Guns are TEH SCARY!
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Guns and politics don’t mix very well, TAO. The lawful exercise of a constitutional right is one thing, but think before bringing certain things into political arenas.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Tom Knapp was right, though, thoreau – the notion that we should not do a thing because the government will crack down worse is a terrible argument.
Comment by dhex —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
“Wow, you really a douche, aren’t you?”
i guess so, joe, i guess so.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 1:56 pm
My criticism was limited to the context of political protest. He did something that is a horrible idea at a protest, and it will have predictable consequences.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
You know what the comments by TAO and Knapp remind me of? I’ve been reading blogs about science and diversity lately, and whenever somebody says that a feminist is over-analyzing things and alienating people who might otherwise sympathize, the response is brutal. Me, I think it’s dumb to over-analyze a cereal commercial, and I think dumb things are a good way to lose credibility. On the “dumb idea that alienates people” scale, I’d say that brining a gun to a protest is worse than a feminist critique of a cereal commercial.
Comment by dhex —
August 13, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
tao, i think the point that people shouldn’t carry firearms at all is a dumb one, and the OH GOD SCARY GUNS thing is indeed laughable in and of itself. however, if you’re playing to the cameras – and we’ll assume for the sake of argument that all the town hallers and their counter-hallers are – carrying a firearm to a town hall in such a manner isn’t the best pr move. it’s good for obama and co., of course, because they can paint all opposition as scary, violent people who are just waiting for a chance to start world war 3; for that reason alone not carrying – at least openly, though i’m unsure of the letter of state law for concealed carry there – would make a lot of sense.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
I am in total agreement with you, dhex @ 52.
Except you have got to give the guy credit for having the nuts to do it.
Comment by dhex —
August 13, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
well, no. it’s legal by NH law. he wasn’t approaching the podium, nor was it unholstered. he didn’t behave irresponsibly in a legal or moral sense; in a political sense, however…image really is everything; they’d do well to remember that.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
Thoreau is, of course, a gun owner.
But everything’s a stereotype to TAO, because that’s just how he rolls. There can’t possibly be a reason why the introduction of firearms to an area that’s been characterized by red-faced screamers is a bad idea, except OMG Guns are teh scary.
Asshole.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
Since Thoreau and dhex can imagine the appearance of an armed person urging anti-government violence at a health care town meeting (Jesus Christ, how sick is it that I can write that phrase?) could “look bad” to viewers on TV…
Perhaps they can take the next step, and understand how it could “look bad” to people who are actually at the meeting? Perhaps even moreso? In and amongst the screaming about Nazis and death?
And how that said “looking bad” could actually go beyond just “looking bad,” to actually “being bad” in terms of our political process, the open exchange of ideas, people’s right to participate in civil society without fear, and public safety?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
I wonder if the career Secret Service agents who made a point of keeping the armed whack job in question under close surveillance have a problem with guns being teh scary?
Wait, what am I saying, of course they do! Just like it was their love of being a victim that made the provide Barack Obama with the largest and earliest protective detail of any presidential candidate in history.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
So, joe, yes-or-no question: do you favor banning guns from events like these?
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Ah, yes, invoke “fear” and there go your rights.
Now you know why I stereotyped you; because you’re a walking fearmongerer.
Comment by dhex —
August 13, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
culture clashes are exactly that, which is probably the most interesting part of this otherwise manufactured “debate”.
GUNS ARE SCARY is part of a certain cultural segment. their colleagues across the field are playing on that in some cases (but not all; some people just like carrying and the vast majority do so responsibly, obviously. the reaction is a natural outgrowth of a culture clash, where guns are a bit like i view cars; nearly animate symbols of death.
one man’s onion is another man’s shoe polish, and whatnot.
shrug. i live in a place with stupid strict gun laws (and lots of shootings both related and unrelated to that fact) i don’t own a gun (i am marginally handy with a chinese broadsword, however), don’t fire guns, and have never carried, concealed or otherwise. but i can understand why others would. i can also understand why some would have a problem with that.
however, i also think the problem is being overblown for the sake of theatrics and posturing (i.e. the guy who wants to kill you won’t brandish it around, he’ll just shoot you; the guy who brandishes at one of these things will be diddy diddy dead right quick.) and, as seen in that alternet piece, for the sake of promoting a narrative where they are perfect victims of an other who knows nothing but hate, fear, fascism and racism.
of course, it’s also a world where these town halls are something other than press events with bussed in supporters from the true powers that be on both sides of this conflict, but such is life.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:08 pm
Yup. Leave them in your car, if you can’t stand leaving your house without a gun.
Right, this is the guy who thinks his rights are being taken away if he can’t stand at the ready against the spree shooters in a room full of police. Look out for those black helicopters.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
What’s wonderful about this argument is that it completely doesn’t matter whether the fear is justified or not.
Stop that man! He is concerned about something!
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
When McVeigh tried to join the Michigan militia, they rejected him because he was advocating violence, and called the cops to let them know they thought he was a dangerous nutcase who might hurt someone.
There’s a lot of people who love running around the woods and feeling like the righteous minority, but there’s a long way from guys like that to guys like McVeigh. It’s the same deal as with deep ecology types: the number of Unabombers is much, much smaller than the number of folks who love running around the woods and feeling righteous.
Being able to murder another human being is either a sign that you are totally whacked, or that you’re living in a social context which is messed up at Burma/Palestine/Afghanistan levels.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
…so therefore, any concern involving armed people in any circumstance – including that of Thoreau, the gun owner – can be dismissed as merely a reflexive fear of guns.
John is a man. Therefore, all men are John.
Some people who dislike Obama are racists. Therefore…
And the guy who’s a loudmouth asshole, who escalates every argument into a red-faced screaming match, and who thinks that the people who disagree with him about health insurance are Nazis? No way things get out of hand with him around. Wouldn’t it be a shame if he didn’t get to wear his Glock for effect as a health care town hall?
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
Fear from what? An openly-carrying, peaceful guy? Yeah, joe, oooh, teh scary.
Go wet your pants over something else.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Fine, joe – you want to limit Second Amendment rights in the presence of the President? Then you won’t object if we limit the First Amendment either, right?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Neel,
I don’t doubt that the vast majority of the people dumb enough to bring a gun into an event hosted by the president have no intention of harming anyone, but 1) as we’ve all seen, things can get out of hand at a contentious event like this, 2) the deliberate strategy of an awful lot of people attending these events is to disrupt and escalate, and 3) by definition, someone who bring a gun into a room with the president (or a courthouse, or the like) is someone who makes poor decisions when it comes to guns and their own personal security.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Actually, joe, I decided to sell an expensive piece of hardware rather than bring it cross-country and deal with various legal hassles.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:23 pm
By definition, eh? Good question-begging, joe.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
You know, I think we can find a way to handle the following propositions without getting into a detailed analysis of fundamental principles and 2nd amendment jurisprudence:
1) Bringing a firearm to a political event is a really, really, really bad idea, and even if not prohibited by state law you should still not do it. For all sorts of reasons.
2) Whatever the precise limits of the 2nd amendment, law enforcement agents probably will/should find a way to keep civilians bearing firearms a safe distance from a person who receive death threats in the mail on a regular basis.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
How do I know he’s peaceful?
This isn’t a guy walking down the street to get milk because he makes a habit of carrying. This is a guy who decided to bring one to a public event that has been extremely confrontational, while wearing clothing advocating violence, while the president is there.
Why don’t you ask Thoreau, the gun owner, why he’s afraid of guns?
Oh, right, because at this point, your little feeling of superiority over your hobbies is all you’ve got left.
Boy, is that fucking stupid. Are people’s 2nd Amendment rights violated when they can’t bring guns into a courthouse? How about when they visit someone at the House of Corrections? How about when they visit Congress?
Somehow, we’ve managed not to squelch the First Amendment despite having secure locations for public officials. Amazing!
It’s like you have a box full of abstractions in your head, and absolutely no capacity for considering their application in the real world, where there are other people and other concerns beyond your hobby horses.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
Yes, by definition, bringing a fucking gun to where the president is demonstrates that you have lousy judgment when it comes to guns.
Do you know why you don’t realize this? Because you have lousy judgment.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
You don’t have a second amendment right to bring a gun into a location whose owner or controller doesn’t want them there.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Um, why “should” they do such a thing? Does anyone have any idea how far away the guy was? The effective range for a handgun is maybe 150 feet. The shot from the Texas Book Depository to the shooting was somewhere between 200-270 feet…do you want to ban guns within that radius? Further?
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
joe @ 72 – more question-begging.
Better ban all guns then.
Thoreau isn’t convincing me either. And how is his ownership of a weapon relevant? Oh yeah, you want to pull the “some of my best friends are gun-toting” card.
And who was the owner?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
I’m not the one who won’t leave the house without a nickel-clad security blanket.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
I don’t own a gun, joe. But I am not afraid of them, so I don’t have to have flapping hysterics every time I see one.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Nah, just keep them out of the town halls. There’s no reason to bother people going about their business.
Because you keep attributing the position we both share to kneejerk fear of guns, and I’m pointing to Thoreau to demonstrate that you are wrong.
I’ll put it a little simpler for you: because people who own guns agree with me, it is not true that my position can be attributed to a fear of guns.
In this case, the event was in a public high school. PS, guns aren’t generally allowed in public high schools.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
Nor am I. Nor is Thoreau.
And you’re still flailing about with stereotypes because you can’t argue your positions rationally.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
TAO, I’ll be the first to salute a President who hops in the car and drives to McDonald’s without a full escort, but if he’s going to an event that’s been announced in advance (i.e. somebody could make plans to harm him) and attracts a crowd, I can’t fault them for establishing a security envelope and keeping guns out of that envelope.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Just because I cannot attribute thoreau’s positions to being afraid of weapons doesn’t mean I cannot do the same thing for you, sweetheart.
So, joe, was the guy inside of the high school? Do you know?
Like I said, are you just going to start carving out wide swathes of area that are “gun-free” for certain periods of time? And what is that based on? Would you have banned weapons for 300 feet? 400 feet?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
If I went into flapping hysterics at the site of guns, why would I be pointing the presence of armed police and Secret Service as a good thing?
YOU AREN’T MAKING ANY SENSE.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
I don’t think that the positions I’m staking out hinge on being able to identify the proper radius and duration of a security envelope. At least not during this afternoon of blog commenting.
Even if there were no security envelope, I think it’s a fucking terrible idea to bring a firearm to a political event (even if state law permits it), especially a very heated political event where the bearer of said firearm is wearing a shirt that advocates violent revolution.
If you can’t figure out why, then I don’t know what to say.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
You can say anything you want. You can attribute my position to the moon landings being faked. It won’t be any more plausible than your implausible embrace of stereotypes here, but you can write anything you want.
This guy wan on the property, in the crowd protesting outside. Another guy was arrested for sneaking around the school before the event, but his unregistered gun was locked in his car. Other TeaDeathers have been bringing guns to health care town halls, and other events with Congressmen.
LIke I said, yup. They should ban guns at these events while they are being held.
Not wanting people to get shot. Next!
Depends on the venue.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
thoreau, I already acknowledged “not a good idea”. you and joe are arguing that this “not good idea” should be enforced.
joe – calm down, honey. We know that you’re not afraid of government guys with guns. It’s the “common man” owning a gun, without your approval or knowledge, that scares you.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
Then ban all guns, joe. You don’t want people to get shot, do you?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
You can keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 13, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
TAO, I didn’t advocate banning of anything except in the particular context of the President’s immediate vicinity.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
The threat posed by people keeping guns in their homes, hunting with them, even carrying them as they go about their business, is much lower than that posed by political activists bringing them into crowed events at which fights have already occurred, and public officials in the midst of contentious debates are present.
Not to mention, there is a 2nd Amendment Right to own guns, and it would be illegal to ban them all. As opposed to bringing them onto a specific property against the wishes of the owner or controller, which isn’t protected by the 2nd amendment to even the slightest degree.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
well, that’s what I am pushing you on. immediate vicinity being…?
joe, you said it yourself – to you, guns threaten “people’s right to participate in civil society without fear”. Are you saying that’s only in the context of when the President visits? Because that’s not what “civil society” means, you know.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
You are incorrect. I did not say that.
I said that bringing guns to town halls, at which there have already been fights that have escalated out of control, and which have been characterized by confrontational tactics utilized by the cadre of people bringing guns to these events, can be expected to produce fear.
I’m applying a reasonable-man standard to a situation involving someone with a gun. However many times you ignore this, and pretend that I am making a general statement about guns, without regard to the context of specific situations, it will still not be my argument, and you still will not refute my actual argument by flailing away at the straw man you created.
No, I’d apply it to any public event at which people will be engaged in contentious advocacy over politics. These “town hall” events, actual New England town meetings, sessions of Congress…that sort of thing. If they’re held in a gun-heavy area, then let people check them on their way in, like coats at a wedding reception.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
The “reasonable man” standard is not “whatever happens to agree with joe’s vision of the world”.
And for the record, NH State law does not prohibit guns in schools, so that puts the “owner” argument to bed pretty quickly.
Is that how you would write the code?
you can say you merely meant the above, but you said “civil society”, and last I checked, that is not so narrowly defined as you have conveniently made it out to be.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 5:28 pm
Or Thoreau’s, apparently.
Or the Secret Service’s.
Hell, you even wrote, thoreau, I already acknowledged “not a good idea”.
I guarantee you, my take on this is a lot closer to the reasonable man than the yammerings of someone who needs to have it explained in agonizing detail why it’s a bad idea to bring a gun into an event with the president.
No, it doesn’t. Massachusetts state law doesn’t prohibit guns in my house, but you’re damn well going to do what I say if you want to come inside. Good lord!
I’ll let you exit gracefully with that. Yup, this was all just a big misunderstanding.
Comment by Mo —
August 13, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
TAO,
The Secret Service pretty much does bad guns in the vicinity of the president. They determine the security envelope, so they determine what is appropriate.
Comment by Mo —
August 13, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
TAO,
Is it really that controversial to say that an angry mob and guns don’t mix?
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 13, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
A public school =/= a house.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 13, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
No, the rules about what may and may not be brought into a house are established by the homeowner, while the rules about what may and may not be brought into a public school are established by several different parties, including the administration, the building superintendent, the school board, and the state government.
What is the point of this jibe, anyway? Are you doubting that public schools can ban firearm possession? That public buildings in general can do so? Because that’s absurd.
Comment by All Your Summer Songs —
August 13, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
– I’m calmer than you are.
– Waving the fuckin’ gun around!?
– Calmer than you.
– Oh, Walter, will just get off it.
– Calmer than you… & am I wrong, or am I wrong, or did we just roll into the next round-robin?
Comment by Phillip J. Birmingham —
August 14, 2009 @ 12:18 am
I know we’re all having fun laughing about “OH MY GOD A GUN,” but let’s not lose sight of the fact that this guy wasn’t just packing heat, but also carrying a sign that read “It’s time to water the tree of liberty.”
I personally am not particularly scared, but don’t tell me for a second he wasn’t trying to be menacing.
Pingback by Psychopolitik 2.0 » Festivus comes early this year —
August 14, 2009 @ 2:22 am
[...] the most public opposition: if you can’t be bothered to stick to the subject & get your stories straight on what you’re opposing, then maybe you shouldn’t [...]
Comment by Kolohe —
August 14, 2009 @ 2:47 am
He was trying to be an attention whore. Mission accomplished, as it were.
Any menace flows from that. It strikes me that the closest recent analog to this with the red/blue sides reversed was that new black panther guy in front of the Philly(?) polling station that fox news would not shut up about.
(as an aside, that blood of tyrants patriots thing is the world’s first ‘
internetquill pen tough guy’ statement. When push came to shove, he always wound up comprimising his principles, and also became bff’s with the president most repsonsible for restricting (white) people’s liberties for the first hundered years or so of the republic.)Comment by BDB —
August 14, 2009 @ 8:46 am
If the guy carrying the gun was planning violence, he wouldn’t (1) carry it openly and (2) have it licensed. He’s just an exhibitionist, not a violent nutcase.
Comment by BDB —
August 14, 2009 @ 8:53 am
Kolohe–
That’s why I’m not a big Jefferson fan. His ideas were really pie-in-the-sky and he didn’t follow them, anyway. That and his enthusiasm for the (extremely violent and ultimately failed) French Revolution are a bit off-putting.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 14, 2009 @ 8:56 am
That probably is the closest analog, but it’s not a very good one.
If there had previously been a series of staged disruptions by lefties at polling places, and confrontations had broken out occasionally leading to arrests, and the operations of polling stations in general had become areas for red-faced tirades by lefties, and then some Black Panthers had showed up with a gun and a slogan about shedding blood, that would be a more precise analogy.
Context matters. This guy sure as heck knew what the context for his armed revolutionary theater was.
Comment by BDB —
August 14, 2009 @ 8:59 am
The Republican town hall disruptions are the right wing’s answer to ANSWER, Code Pink, and Cindy Sheehan, and will be about as effective (read: not at all).
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 14, 2009 @ 9:18 am
joe, what are you talking about? Do you think that if state law does not ban firearm possession at say, a state park, then the “park administrator” and other assorted cronies can just ban guns at will?
NH law permits guns to be in public buildings, other than courthouses. The state government is what sets the rules for public places that are funded by taxpayer dollars. Guns were not banned at the school, so the “owner” argument you’re putting forward doesn’t make sense – the taxpayer is the owner, the legislature and other government officials act as trustees to the property and the rules were set by the public: guns are allowed at the school.
Is that a legal standard now? The Secret Service, within its sole discretion, can override the Second Amendment and state law?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 14, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Yes, in the absence of a specific law to the contrary.
Hence, firearms are banned in schools, despite there being no laws explicitly banning their possession in schools. Go ahead, try to bring a gun into a New Hampshire high school. Let us know how it goes.
Try to get this through your skull: THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOESN’T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO BRING A GUN ONTO PEOPLE’S PROPERTY AGAINST THEIR WILL.
You are appalling ignorant about the law, but it never interferes with your habit of talking down to people about it.
Comment by Phillip J. Birmingham —
August 14, 2009 @ 10:02 am
He was trying to be an attention whore. Mission accomplished, as it were.
Any menace flows from that. It strikes me that the closest recent analog to this with the red/blue sides reversed was that new black panther guy in front of the Philly(?) polling station that fox news would not shut up about.
Anomalous and not a real threat? Fair enough, and I agree for what it’s worth.
I’m just tired of seeing the apparent belief that concerns about violence are essentially fabricated of whole cloth (e.g. just about every story about the town halls on Hit and Run.) Yeah, people should probably learn to tell a tough talker from a real threat, but let’s quit pretending that the guy hasn’t transgressed a boundary.
Comment by BDB —
August 14, 2009 @ 10:04 am
I agree with whoever said this all feels very 1994. If Hillary Clinton had won this would be 100% de ja vu.
Comment by dhex —
August 14, 2009 @ 10:29 am
‘quill pen tough guy’ statement
ha!
on the other hand he did successfully troll the king.
Comment by Kolohe —
August 14, 2009 @ 11:32 am
Payne wuz teh 1337 1.
Um, yes? I really don’t see a big problem here. The natural limitation is that the service service like any govt employees, aren’t going to do all that much more than they think they are required to. They’re going to make the bubble as small as practicable (although still quite large) but are not going to randomly go after people outside the security bubble. And for the most part, if you don’t want to be hassled by that bubble, one just stays clear of it that day.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 14, 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Sorry, joe, but that is plain incorrect. The fact that NH law bans guns from courthouses and only courthouses means, by implication, that guns are permitted on other public buildings. It’s called “Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius” – the express mention of one thing excludes all others.
This guy did, and the only one who seems to think it was illegal is you. Everybody criticizing this guy (Chris Mathews included) acknowledged that it was legal (but a bad idea) for him to do so.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 14, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Ditto.
The OKC bombing was April 19, 2005.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 14, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
Whoops, April 19, 1995.
Need an edit function.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 14, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Except you are incorrect, and guns are banned from public schools in Hampshire by the administrations all the time.
No, he didn’t. RTFA, and stop writing things out of ignorance.
It’s time to give up on the gut checks.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 14, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Facts. Dig ‘em!
Comment by BDB —
August 14, 2009 @ 2:16 pm
I don’t think it will necessarily be far-right violence though. Crazy talk brings out the loons from every end of the spectrum. I.e., Kennedy was shot by a Communist, not a Bircher.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 14, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
I never said that what this guy did was illegal.
You asked me a question about banning guns within public events like this one, or within certain public buildings.
That was already done, btw – this guy could not have gotten into the building with a gun. So, your turn: you gotta problem wit dat?
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 14, 2009 @ 2:32 pm
you’re telling me that New Hampshire law permits administrators to institute blanket bans in areas where carrying is permitted?
I need a cite on that.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 14, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
Actually, this whole discussion is moot:
Title 18, United State Code, Section 922, paragraph (q) is the Gun Free School Zones Act. You can’t have a gun in, on the grounds of, or within 1,000 feet of the property line of, an elementary or secondary school, whether public or private. (Note that this doesn’t include colleges or universities.)
School property wasn’t a good example.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 15, 2009 @ 3:07 am
The Gun Free Schools Act was ruled unconstitutional in U.S. v. Lopez.
Try again, joe.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 15, 2009 @ 10:45 am
OK, I will go back to the incredibly obvious point that there are metal detectors at the doors of schools throughout the country, for the purpose of preventing guns from being brought in.
Are you this stupid, that you don’t realize schools can ban guns?
Seriously?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 15, 2009 @ 10:52 am
Tennessee bans guns in schools.
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=94333&provider=rss
Tennessee. There is a dispute about whether this ban extends to public parks when the school uses them for events, with the Attorney General arguing that it does. The underlying law, that guns are banned on school property, isn’t disputed by anyone.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 15, 2009 @ 10:58 am
Florida bans guns in schools, even after passing a law allowing people to bring them onto other workplace grounds.
http://www.law.miami.edu/news.php?article=992
Florida.
Comment by The Angry Optimist —
August 15, 2009 @ 11:47 am
I never said that there are no states that ban guns in schools, joe. Just, in this case, NH law does not. What are you on about? Everyone recognizes, even yourself, that this was legal for this guy to do. What are you trying to prove?
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 16, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
That you were wrong when you asserted that a school district cannot ban guns on school property.
And I have done so. Had you clicked the links I provided you would have discovered that Florida doesn’t have a blanket state law banning guns from schools, but that local school districts have their own bans.
You know, exactly the thing you said couldn’t happen.
Comment by Thomas L. Knapp —
August 18, 2009 @ 3:58 am
Guess I’ll just have to manually simulate a trackback here.