Firearm-Free Political Events?

David Sirota writes:

While the First Amendment doesn’t ensure credibility or significance, it is supposed to guarantee freedom from fear — a freedom that is now under siege. Citing the Second Amendment and the increasingly maniacal rhetoric of conservative media firebrands, a small handful of violence-threatening protesters aims to make the rest of us — whether pro- or anti-health-reform — afraid to speak out.

Sirota thinks that political events should be firearm-free like stadiums and schools. He has found a way to blame Republicans as threatening the rest of ‘us’ when legally wearing  sidearms as they protest government policies. Well, that is what the Second Amendment is about isn’t it?

The First Amendment refers to limitations upon Congress to establish certain types of laws and says that people have a right to peacefully assemble.Nothing about fear.

It appears to me that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to ensure that an armed citizenry can defend itself from, and project its will  upon,  an abberrant, oppressive, and tyrannical  government; like a government  that may interfere with the First Amendment. 

There is no reason to federally prevent firearms at political events. In fact, there is every reason to ensure that this right is defended. There should be some limitations, of course, like  known threats to participants in heated meetings or in overcrowded meeting rooms in which police may not be able to respond quickly to an overt threat. But who needs a federal rule about this anyway?  The states are responsible for political expression  and not the federal government.

Share:

Related Articles

18 thoughts on “Firearm-Free Political Events?

  1. Conservatives had a fit, arrested and ejected liberals wearing political t-shirts at Bush rallies, but bringing guns to Obama rallies is just fine. Got it. You don’t feel a little hypocritical? Where were you protesting those ejections. No where because, hell, you’re a real American.

    Now that we’re past the t-shirt outrage, liberal gun advocates will certainly want to bring firearms to Republican events as well.

    One other thing; how free is your speech when you’re talking to an armed and loaded anti-government hot head like we’ve seen at recent town halls? I have a feeling the hot head will win everytime. So much for our First Amendment rights.

    1. Are you focused on the partisanship issue or the Second Amendment?

      I am focused on a federal law that would prevent citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights. I think our forefathers brought guns to political events and town halls since 17xx. Have we forgotten that?

      Mr. Sirota is equating a town hall meeting about healthcare with a political event and he says he favors a federal law intruding into the affairs of a state. I would say it had nothing to do with politics except that one political party is for and one is against. And the federal gov’t should butt out.

      You would likely be afraid of the hothead even if he has nothing in his hands. And your First Amendment rights have nothing to do with your fellow citizens. They can prevent your free speech any way they can get away with it as long as they don’t pose a danger.

      And if you are afraid of a holstered weapon simply because a man has one then you are easily intimidated and you should spend more time around men who openly carry where permitted by law.

    2. Sort of like how people protesting everything Bush did were speaking truth to power but those who don’t agree with HR 3200 are angry dangerous mobs. There is hypocrisy on both sides on this one. There were plenty of conservatives (I know I certainly was) calling BS on Bush’s actions in this area and the whole “if you’re not for us, you’re against us” garbage. Kinda funny how hope & change and a new kind of politician got us the “turn in your neighbors” and “those who disagree need to just shut up.” Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

      1. So true. Quick answer, please. No googling. Name three items related to Iraq, torture, the Patriot Act, domestic spying that President Obama has countermanded?

        I could only think of one.

  2. Keep in mind that it only takes one crazy nutjob to f&*% it up for everyone. There is a difference between peacefully carrying a visible holstered gun and aggressively flaunting it. It’s rather like the difference between the gay couples who marched to the State Capitol last Fall demonstrating for marriage equality and the leather-thong-clad attention whores who make up the most visible parts of big-city pride parades. The latter are not representative, and they’re really just embarrassing jackasses, but they somehow become the “face” of the community in the eyes of many.

    Those who really want to promote 2nd amendment rights should make a point of using courteous speech and body language while they are openly carrying, rather than shouting and finger-pointing. That may actually do a lot to help the reflexive gun-haters get over their fear of holstered weapons. Keep the safety engaged and the snap on the holster while you are out in public, unless you genuinely need to defend yourself or a bystander against a violent crime. You get no points if you incite that violent crime.

    I’m afraid, though, that allowing the public to bring guns to the upcoming town hall held jointly by Reps. Gwen Moore and Paul Ryan would not end well.

    Think about every member of your extended family who owns at least one gun. Would you trust every one of them to carry that gun around in public? If you say yes, I’m going to guess that either your relatives are all city folks and/or pacifists who don’t own guns, or you have a very small family.

  3. T-shirts or guns–it’s all the same: an abridgment of people’s rights clearly spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Next we’ll see “gun-toting zones” to go with our “free speech zones”. It needs to stop. I’m all for the open-carry supporters.

    1. I did not see your comment when I posted mine below. I was not referring to your comment nor the posting that you reference.

      But it is true that muckraking bloggers are shaping their postings to incite others at the expense of honesty and accuracy.

      (Hmmmm, perhaps ‘muckraking bloggers’ will catch on, eh?)

  4. How easily we give up the Second Amendment because we fear the boogeyman. “It’s the other guy that we need to fear.Not me. I am sane and so are the people I know.”

    We have more hunters in Wisconsin with guns during deer season than troops in Iraq. We have hundreds of thousands of police, FBI, special law enforcement personnel, and guards that carry guns everyday. We have tens of thousands of National Guard people who carry guns regularly. And yet we don’t fear them; we fear the boogeyman. The dark stranger. The man we only dimly perceive through half-opened eyes.

    Exactly where do all of those hunters, policemen, National Guard, amd military personnel come from? They come from us and when they are done hunting, done protecting, and done serving then they return to us. To impose restrictions on everyone ‘not authorized by law’ for open carry at public meetings is unAmerican and absurd.

    I do not dispute that there are crazy people out there. I recognize that there are venues when weapons of any kind should not be permitted. And local police can make those decisions when they need to be made. But for Mr. Sirota to call for a federal law to prohibit weapons at town hall meetings that he calls political events is unnecessary, unwarranted, unwanted, and unconstitutional.

    States have a right to set their own laws on open carry and concealed carry. This is not the domain of the federal government.

    I agree with Jill’s caution and agree we should be cautious around people with weapons. The police need to size up those who have weapons and use their best judgement as to the threat this person may be. The behaviors, posture, speech, and stance tell us about the man with the gun and his potential as a threat to peace and order.

    We don’t need more laws prohibiting firearms, we need a discerning public and police force to know threats when they see them and to take effective action to prevent harm.

  5. Just a few observations in response to all the insecure gun crazy zealots.

    “States have a right to set their own … This is not the domain of the federal government.”

    But it is the domain of the conservative activist Federal Supreme Courts decision effecting all states and their laws?

    “I agree with Jill’s caution … we should be cautious around people with weapons.”

    What a way to have a debate, heated or otherwise. And the following is just plain scary:

    “The police need to size up those who have weapons and use their best judgment as to the threat this person may be. We don’t need more laws prohibiting firearms, we need a discerning public and police force to know threats when they see them and to take effective action to prevent harm.”

    What the hell kind of life is that? Good god!

    “on the subject of firearms at town hall meetings … modern day lynching because of a black guy in the White House – while showing video of a guy carrying a gun at a meeting … the video is carefully edited so as to not reveal that the man in question actually happens to be black.”

    They guy has ties to organized anti-government militias. He’s a safe looking normal kinda guy though. Cool.

    “Sort of like how people protesting everything Bush did were speaking truth to power but those who don’t agree with HR 3200 are angry dangerous mobs.”

    Are you just insane? I’ll take my chances with a guy in a t-shirt, you can take the guy with the gun, okay?

    “T-shirts or guns–it’s all the same”

    Ditto.

    “There is a difference between peacefully carrying a visible holstered gun and aggressively flaunting it. It’s rather like the difference between the gay couples who marched to the State Capitol last Fall”

    Yea, carry a loaded weapon, intimidating everyone else who doesn’t, and gay couples in a parade somehow relate to each other. This whole open carry thread is enough of a warning to take cover, stay in your homes and give our streets up to the gun toting masturbators who never grew up enough to put their toys down.

    And finally, this frightening response from a gun crazy bully who’s willing to push anyone around, intimidate other Americans, because he can prevent free speech any way he can get away with. You made my case.

    “You would likely be afraid of the hothead even if he has nothing in his hands … They can prevent your free speech any way they can get away with it as long as they don’t pose a danger.

    And if you are afraid of a holstered weapon simply because a man has one then you are easily intimidated and you should spend more time around men who openly carry where permitted by law.”

    A little advise; spend some time around women. I guess all of us who are “easily intimidated” should step to the back of the bus? Another example of authoritarian conservative thuggery.

    1. Insecure? Gun Crazy? Zealots?

      If keeping the federal government from infringing upon more of the Bill of Rights and upon state sovereignty places me in that category, I will accept that description but point out that it is deeply flawed.

  6. Thank you for admitting your intentions. For me, it’s frustrating trying to communicate with constitutional authorities like you and the other open carry advocates who know more than legal scholars and historians. It sounds good at rallies and town hall meetings, but lacks expertise and legal interpretation. There are those who don’t see a need for regulation to ensure public safety.

    As a country, open and concealed carry laws have turned a page, starting a new chapter that reflects a third world vision of armed civilians and a cowering public afraid to question our untrained gun toting authorities walking among us. What’s next, local war lords keeping the peace?

    “I will accept that description.” Sadly, case closed.

    “Flawed?” Nice come back.

    1. As a country, open and concealed carry laws have turned a page, starting a new chapter that reflects a third world vision of armed civilians and a cowering public afraid to question our untrained gun toting authorities walking among us. What’s next, local war lords keeping the peace?

      First of all, this displays a literally stunning lack of historical perspective of this country with regards to gun rights. Really. I don’t even know where to begin – virtually any book written in the past will portray a country with less restrictive gun control than today. We had a sitting VP and former Sec. of the Treasury!

      It doesn’t take a legal scholar to read the Constitution and understand it. But I guess only legal scholars have a right to voice their opinion on their rights. I trust you believe the same applies to all the other rights too – we should all just shut up and let the experts determine these things. No need for us to even discuss any of this stuff here.

  7. You don’t know where to begin because… you have nothing. Nice try though.

    Of course in the past, we had fewer people and were less civilized. I know, learning from our past and present isn’t your thing. It’s less convienent when you’re making your case. You really don’t think about the people around you who are unconfortable with your raging testosterone levels on full display? Duh!

    Your cheap debating technique of overstating my meaning, “I guess only legal scholars have a right…,” is insulting. In my comments, I did suggest regulation. Huh oh, I wrote the “r” word. Bullies don’t like rules and regulations. I’ll bet most carry advocates break the law in Wisconsin by carrying their concealed weapons. I have 2 very good friends who do just that. They love to quote the constitution, but break the laws they don’t like. Is that you?

    I don’t know what you meant writing “sitting VP and former Sec. of the Treasury.”

    BOTTOM LINE: Regulate for the public safety.

    Conservative David Frum recently wrote:

    “Nobody has been hurt so far. We can all hope that nobody will be. But firearms and politics never mix well. They mix especially badly with a third ingredient: the increasingly angry tone of incitement being heard from right-of-center broadcasters.”

    “The Nazi comparisons from Rush Limbaugh; broadcaster Mark Levin asserting that President Obama is “literally at war with the American people”; former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin claiming that the president was planning “death panels” to extirpate the aged and disabled; the charges that the president is a fascist, a socialist, a Marxist, an illegitimate Kenyan fraud, that he “harbors a deep resentment of America,” that he feels a “deep-seated hatred of white people,” that his government is preparing concentration camps, that it is operating snitch lines, that it is planning to wipe away American liberties”: All this hysterical and provocative talk invites, incites, and prepares a prefabricated justification for violence.”

    “And indeed some conservative broadcasters are lovingly anticipating just such an outcome.”

    Duh! This is the insane trajectory of American society. What we now know as “normal”, tens of thousands of gun deaths a year, will look like an episode of Teletubbies in retrospect.

    1. I don’t think you were threatening anyone, HD, and instead you were pointing out that a person is responsible and not the gun.
      When I heard about the boy in California with the chainsaw, sword, and pipe bombs I had a similar thought as you.

Comments are closed.