Most Popular This Week
- Not to Worry, Rape Victims Who Want An Abortion: We Won't Charge You With Felony Tampering With Evidence, Just Your Doctor
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Obama Administration Compromise Would Implement No-Cost Birth Control
- The Right of the People, Even At the Airport
- To End Extreme Poverty, Let’s Try Ending Extreme Wealth
- The Non Zero-Sum Society: How the Rich Are Destroying the US Economy
- Don’t Put a Fork in It: On the Perils of Genetically Engineered Salmon
- Five Possibilities for the Next Great Progressive Push
- An Economic Alternative to Exploitative Free Market Capitalism
- UN Report: Israel Must Immediately Dismantle Settlements or Face ICC
Popular content
Today's Top News
Guns at Political Events: A Chilling Effect on the First Amendment
On August 11, a man with a loaded firearm in a holster appeared outside a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where President Obama was speaking. He carried a sign that said: "It is Time to Water the Tree of Liberty"—a reference to Thomas Jefferson's statement that "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Neither the Secret Service nor police ushered the man away from the area of the president's town meeting. ("Protestor at Obama Healthcare Town Hall Carried 9mm Pistol-Legally," Guardian, August 12, 2009)
On August 17, a reported dozen people carrying guns, including two with assault rifles, were among protestors outside a convention center in Phoenix, Arizona, where President Obama was speaking. It was the latest incident where protestors with guns were seen outside events where the president had appeared to speak about his healthcare proposals, which right-wing opponents denounce as an assault on liberty. Neither the Secret Service nor police ushered the persons carrying guns away from the event, nor were any persons carrying firearms arrested. ("Armed Men Seen Outside Barack Obama Event," Telegraph/UK [via Common Dreams], August 18, 2009)
Compare this restraint by the Secret Service and police to the following events.
In July 2008, a 61-year-old librarian was arrested at a McCain campaign event in Denver for carrying a sign that read, "McCain=Bush." ("Woman Arrested at McCain Event for ‘McCain=Bush' Sign," AlterNet, July 7, 2008)
In 2005, three people were ejected by police from a Bush town hall meeting in Denver after they arrived in a car with a bumper sticker that read, "No More Blood for Oil." ("Politicians Are Stifling Dissent, Critics Say," Knight-Ridder [via Common Dreams], February 4, 2006)
In October 2004, three school teachers in Medford, Oregon, were threatened with arrest by police and thrown out of a political rally featuring President Bush after they showed up wearing T-shirts with the slogan, "Protect Our Civil Liberties." ("Teachers' T-Shirts Bring Bush Speech Ouster," NewsChannel 8, Portland [via Common Dreams], October 15, 2004)
In July 2004, a Wisconsin county supervisor wearing a blue-denim shirt over a T-shirt that said "Kerry for President" was ejected from a Bush campaign speech after the Secret Service reportedly took his driver's license, social security number, and phone number. (" County Supervisor Booted from Bush Event for Wearing Hidden Kerry T-Shirt," The Progressive, July 22, 2004)
From the standpoint of the U.S. Constitution, the heavy-handed treatment of liberal school teachers, librarians, and county supervisors and the more deferential approach to armed right-wing protestors, makes no sense. While there would be no threat to the Constitution in the months and years ahead if dozens or hundreds of school teachers showed up at Republican political events wearing T-shirts with political messages that did not incite violence, the threat of violence would be extreme if as many armed right-wing protestors appeared at Democratic events. Even in the absence of actual violence, the implicit threat of violence by the appearance of armed right-wing protestors represents an unacceptable chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of Americans.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "chilling effect" as "the result of a law or practice that seriously discourages the exercise of a constitutional right, such as ... the right of free speech." Who could credibly argue that the appearance of armed right-wing protestors at Democratic political events would have no chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of Democrats to attend those events, and to express their political preferences with regard to healthcare, global warming, or gun-control? Mustering the courage to show up and speak up at Democratic political events in the presence of armed right-wing protestors obviously poses an undue burden on the First Amendment rights of Democrats, including on Democratic presidents, congressional officials, and candidates for office.
Nor does the alleged Second Amendment right of an individual to a firearm trump the First Amendment rights of Americans. While the federal courts have treated First Amendment rights as fundamental to the Constitution, the same courts have not treated any Second Amendment right in a similar manner.
The Congress and the president have a compelling public interest and constitutional duty to protect the First Amendment, and the safety of elected officials and their supporters, by outlawing the discretion of gun owners to appear at political events with their weapons.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
241 Comments so far
Show AllAlex123,
At first I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about many of your posts. But you need to do two things. Carefully read Erroll's posts. Second, go spew your misinformed bullshit somewhere else. Whether you recognize it or not, your posts clearly illustrate your profound ignorance.
Actually Saddam encouraged all Iraqi households to have at least one AK-47, a supply of ammo, and training in the guns use. Saddam successfully ruled this well-armed populace by instilling a fear that the Persian hordes were ready to come swarming across the eastern border - with close air support from Israel.
So much for a well armed populace being free. Sound familiar?
KW
Intelligently well stated.
Typically, I am annoyed with anti-gun articles as they are usually an attack on a very legitimate right to keep and bear arms as enshrined in our second amendment and further upheld by the heller decision.
That said, openly displaying a firearm at an event like this smacks of stupidity - and that's coming from a guy who collects and carries concealed. is it intimidation? that's hard to say for certain, but what this does do is paint honest gun owners in a bad light and provides the reactionary morons on the left with more ammo - pun intended.
Yes, its legal to openly carry in those states - doesn't mean they HAD to do it. A concealed weapon (legally held of course) would have been the way to go if one was so inclined as it too is protected under law. Again, given that its a presidential appearance, I dont know why anyone would go through the trouble.
While the article was as expected, an anti gun diatribe bemoaning the presence of the guns, this line here just smacks of arrogance:
"Nor does the alleged Second Amendment right of an individual to a firearm trump the First Amendment rights of Americans. While the federal courts have treated First Amendment rights as fundamental to the Constitution, the same courts have not treated any Second Amendment right in a similar manner. "
2 problems - there is nothing 'alleged' about the second amendment - it is a fundamental right of all citizens (w/in reason per Heller) to keep and bear arms. Whereas Heller upheld this, the author is wrong as to how the Federal Courts treat firearms ownership.
"is it intimidation?"
Given that the rally was about health care, and had NOTHING to do with gun rights, then I'd say the answer to your question if extremely clear.
Yes, it was intimidation.
And a thinly-veiled threat to our President.
Is this the future for the US? Gun-toting intimidaters patrolling voting booths on election day to keep away voters?
Is the NRA our version of the Taliban?
I guess Im not going to be popular after this, but no, the NRA is not the American Taliban. The NRA is a civil rights organization.
I don't see it as a threat per se - it was more about dick waving and showing off. Liberals have the peace sign, conservatives, well, the gun.
Perhaps if SEIU members weren't assaulting the opposition, maybe the right wouldn't see the need for guns. Perhaps if black panthers weren't intimidating those at the voting booths in november, the climate would be different.
And where did "SEIU members...assault the opposition"? If you're referring to Kenneth Gladney, the video starts off showing one SEIU member on the ground with Gladney standing over him, who then gets pulled to the ground by another SEIU member, then gets back up, and that's that. And that's what the right-wingers called a "savage beating" by "union thugs".
Gladney was one incident in which a man was assaulted for simply giving away flags and buttons opposing Obama. that's not what democracy looks like, that's intimidation. There have been several reports of these wannabe Sopranos pulling similar garbage, so please don't insult my intelligence by acting coy.
I have not seen evidence that he was assaulted at all, much less for giving away flags. The video pretty much shows the aftermath of him assaulting a SEIU member. So don't insult my intelligence by repeating Free Republic/Fox Nation/Rush Limbaugh (the Sopranos bit) crap here.
And shouting down a member of Congress when they attempt to speak is instead a sign of democracy, and not intimidation?
And shouting down a member of Congress when they attempt to speak is instead a sign of democracy, and not intimidation?
- it seemed to have worked wonders when Cindy Sheehan and the poorly dressed slobs from Code Pink disrupted senate hearings and other legislative speaking engagements. I oppose carrying a gun at a protest - openly anyway - but the rest is just tactics taken from the left wing handbook.
And they were arrested or removed from the event, weren't they?
Did you only read the title of this article? It cited numerous examples of people being arrested for wearing just a t-shirt or holding a sign expressing an opposing opinion.
And I think that sucks that one would be arrested from a Bush event for wearing an opposition t shirt (unless its a private event). Hell, I was wearing an Obama Anti-Christ t shirt and was almost kicked out of a shopping mall, but I digress...
My point is, as much as I thinktheir actions were stupid, in AZ at least, the armed man was within his rights. In NH, the idiot was carrying at a school, a federal violation.
Teddy's Tumor believes that "it was more about dick waving and showing off. Liberals have the peace sign, conservatives, well, the gun." One has to wonder if Teddy's Tumor is seriously attempting to claim that a peace sign and a gun are somehow equivalent to each other. To note the obvious, a peace sign does not, unlike a firearm, have the ability to fire bullets at someone causing brain damage, blindness, paralysis and/or death. I will pose this question again. Why bring a firearm to a discussion concerning health care? The only possible and logical reason that one can come up with is that the sight of a weapon is designed to intimidate someone else from expressing his or her [alleged] radical point of view. It would seem that only in America is it deemed radical to push for a single payer health care system [which for Obama qualifies as being too radical]. I seriously doubt that it can be argued that seeing someone carrying a peace sign or a peace symbol around one's neck [with the emphasis being on the word peace] will somehow produce the same result as a gun whose effect is, unlike the peace symbol, to frighten and kill and maim and cripple. A gun can ruin someone's life; a peace symbol is designed to stop and prevent killing from taking place.
see it as you wish. Ive stated repeatedly that as a gun owner, I think an openly displayed weapon at ANY protest is just dumb.
Do I claim that a gun and a peace sign are equal? No. I do assert however,that the HC debate IS about eliminating options, choices and freedoms - the gun toting protesters chose, albiet wisely, to practice one of many freedoms under threat of removal.
The NRA is a joke organization that is run by Handgun Control Inc. They actually support gun control legislation. There are far better organizations out there to protect gun rights.
The U.S. Constitution was written by rich capitalists, and written in the only way possible to protect excessive wealth, and that is by destroying democracy. Democracy being equality as exemplified by equality of wealth.
Comes now men to our town hall meetings with a killing machine strapped to their body, and they to hold up signs that threaten to kill us if we dare try to change government.
Now if you ask me, their either gutless wonders who get a kick out of terrorizing the harmless, or CIA agents doing what best protects a corrupt government.
You're falling into the "hate the war, wear a Mao button" trap, friend.
Just because we don't like the intimidators and gun-toters, does NOT mean that what they oppose -an absolute fraud, corporate-power and money grab, of a "health reform bill"- is something that "we" are doing to "try to change government".
To leap to defend this crap "reform" just because folks you don't like oppose it is to be a sucker.
I know how you feel man...but I do try to clear up misconceptions about the bill, just become of my general disgust at how the Right twists anything and everything that Democrats do, even when it's bullshit. If they'll do that even for something that gives the insurance companies everything they want, imagine what they'll do when HR676 comes up for a vote later this year.
You're falling into the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" trap.
Just because the gun toters oppose Obama, is no reason to leap to their defense.
Sorry Teddy. The only right the second amendment gives you is the right to brandish a weapon as part of a well armed militia. Join the national guard if you want to tote guns around. Maybe you can do a stint in Iraq and kill some Iraqis before that tumor overtakes you.
"Maybe you can do a stint in Iraq and kill some Iraqis before that tumor overtakes you."
At first I thought that poster chose the moniker "TeddysTumor" as a gradeschool jab at Senator Kennedy, but after reading his comments I came to the realization that he probably really is named Teddy and is suffering from the effects of some large and growing malignant tumor in his brain. He needs understanding more than anything now, and his bizarre comments should be recognized as a plea for help and recognition that he still matters, though his thought processes have seriously deteriorated.
The least he could have done is made a better effort to disguise his stupidity. RightWingTroll would have been less of a tip off.
thats the problem with you people. you always see things as left or right, republican or democrat. its exactly this kind of thinking that makes you a non-contributor in the grand scheme of things.
this isn't a football game, this is the future of our country. get on board or sit down, you elitist pig.
Good grief, study a little history.
Monarchists versus Liberals. Who won that football game?
Fear, national pride, xenophobia? Who spouts that kind of crap? Oh yeah, right wing nut jobs. This isn't about football sonny. www.nfl.com might be a better place for you.
Funny how your type tries to label common sense with names like "xenophobia" because you can't win using reasonable terms.
My type? What am I winning? You don't like my ten dollar word? How about them illegal immigrants?
Sorry Lefty, but your analysis of the second amendment is wrong and the heller decision proved it just recently. Militia does not directly refer to a national guard or other government sanctioned martial force (the guard was created in 1921). Instead, it refers to the citizens' rights to keep and bear arms - that means me, that means you, that means your neighbor - we're ALL militia.
Think contextually before you deride me as a lunatic - the founders wrote this after (and during) the revolution, where they saw their comerades, neighbors and loved ones slaughtered by the king's army - do you really think these radicals intended for arms to be solely in the hands of the same kind of armed force?
Where else does 'the people' translate to 'the national guard' in the Constitution?
Very smarmy joke to make about killing Iraqis - why do you hate brown people?
I don't know what to tell you. Read the Constitution. It says it in black and white. "..as part of a well armed militia" I'll give you points for creativity. "We are all militia." Stole that one from Nixon. "We are all Keynesians."
Well armed militia = national guard. La la la, connect the dots.
Nothing smarmy about it. I think Iraq is a legitimate outlet for someone as emotionally and intellectually stunted as you are.
its 'well regulated' as in equipped and if you can't understand history and the context in which that amendment was written, then I suggest you march back to your lousy school and demand a return of your tuition dollars.
The national guard was not formed until the mid 1920s - the fathers were actually very much against the creation of a standing army...but of course, your lack of critical thinking skills won't allow for such a deduction.
Part of my critical thinking skills allow me to translate "well regulated militia" into meaning "everyone and their dog out on the streets"? Alrighty then!
Forget about the 1920's. These fixations on irrelevant minutia are just one symptom of the larger problem you face. I gave you an example of a modern day militia in the hopes that you join. Get over it.
Perhaps you should read that - it doesn't say "..as part of a well armed militia" anywhere in there.
No, the National Guard is the military, not the miltia.
And no, the Second Amendment says nothing about having to be a member of a militia (although that is a good idea), just that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The way you try so hard to interpret this to twist it to fit your fascist POV doesn't make sense and I will expose how stupid it is thus: name me what other Amendment in the Bill of Rights bestows a right......FOR GOVERNMENT. No, the rights apply TO the government RESTRICTING their infringment on the citizens.
Alex,
I agree with your argument that the militia historically had been a local citizen formed unit where the individual members trained, but then kept the weapons in their houses (see my post ref 1768 earlier.) Today's national guard is not local. It's statewide. They keep weapons out of the hands of the citizens locked up in the national armory. The National Guard is under the control of the governor (or Bush in the Bush Dark Ages.) Colonial Militias were not under the control of the governor or the Army. They were under the control of members of the local assembly.
The bill of Rights was a guarantee of citizen rights resulting in the refusal of cooperation from the anti-federalists.
But more importantly, the military does not need a "right" to posses a gun. That's the very definition of the word military. That's like saying the Navy needs a right to posses a boat. It's an absurd misconception of anti-gun people. The reality is that several states including North Carolina refused to sign the 1789 US Constitution unless a Bill of Rights like Virginia had was incorporated into as Amendments via article V. It was not included in the Constitution, but added later, by Madison, as promised, because he realized the Union would dissolve without CITIZEN protections from FEDERAL POWER.
The National Guard is not a Militia.
But I wonder if your use of the word fascist is incorrect.
Noun 1. fascist - an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views.
or
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
[Italian fascismo, from fascio, group, from Late Latin fascium, from Latin fascis, bundle.]
fas·cistic (f-shstk) adj.
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group," but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.
Obama allows displays like this in his presence. That doesn't sound like Fascism. Fascism would equate to the bush administration who would readily waterboard you if you wore a "bush lies" t-shirt or threw a harmless shoe at him.
Wouldn't you say?
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
What would happen if someone showed up with an RPG? Is there a law against wearing a vest full of C4?
Look at the bright side: Maybe this is more evidence that the pen really is mightier than the sword.
Unless of course the sword is held by those who hate the pen.
Unless of course those who have the pen out-number those with the sword.
HARD PLACE AND THE ROCK
We live in a capitalist dictatorship, which is the freedom to compete for excessive wealth. And to protect such wealth the rich need an overabundance of legalized killers. Problem is, strap a killing machine to a man's body and you give his head a god-ego.
And so, we are caught between the hard place and the Rock. The hard place being a need for citizens bearing arms to be our only protection from a most ungodly government.
The Rock being:
"Jesus said, 'Do not use force to overcome evil. If they strike you on the right cheek turn to them the other also.'"
"The whole world is under the control of the evil one... The power of death and deadly force -- that is the devil."
Actually, turning the other cheek was a way of getting a Roman soldier in trouble.
We haven't had capitalism in this country for a very long time. We live under fascism. Private profits and socialized losses.
As long as the Right hits the streets toting guns and the Left just hits the keyboards, nothing will change in America.
yes because clearly, we need another civil war in this country. Emphasis on sarcasm.
NO. You need a Left that's hitting hard. You can hit hard without using arms. That's always the means of the primitive morons.
Let me go back a long while: Reagan's people had made the mullahs in Iran not release the US hostages before his inauguration. That alone should have been a major scandal. It wasn't. That asshole Reagan is considered a national hero and his legacy is never attacked.
Carter - under whose watch hardly an American died abroad, quite a change - is to this day not really recognized.
When the Right tried to unseat Clinton in what in any African country would have been viewed as a "cold" coup d'état, the American Left didn't hit the streets. Oh no.
When Dubya ran amok, he never needed to be really afraid of the Left, did he? Nobody heckled him the way Obama is being heckled right now. Blogs were going crazy, but, quite frankly, so they are in Iran. At least the blog-writers of Iran did finally hit the streets.
I don't know what it takes to sever a progressive American from his or her comfort zone in front of a screen by now. Internet protest is inefficient! No government has ever been unseated due to angry tweets or blogs!
You want a fairly progressive administration to conduct a fairly progressive agenda? Then go out and show them. Stand up and be counted and don't leave the field to the Right!
And BTW: I am not sure that someone in the US right now isn't paying some groups in Iraq and Afghanistan a lot of money to throw a few bombs and cause a lot of misery.
THAT'S America today. Face it and do something about it.
If you were for example French, you wouldn't be such well-meaning desk-potatoes only.
Quite the reverse. For the Right hit the streets toting guns and holding up signs threatening to kill anyone who dares try to change things, especially our ungodly government of all things.
Who made that threat? I've seen threats by our government by those who stand to profit to steal more of our liberties, money and privacy in order to provide health care to illegal aliens, though.
Read the article schizo boy.
In some other countries, the president or president-equivalent can walk the streets without fear.
Those are countries in which the majority of citizens don't feel like they have their backs to the wall every day. They're not one paycheck from disaster. They don't have to worry that getting sick or losing a job could put them into the street forever, or that if they have the "wrong" color skin or live in the "wrong" neighborhood they could be summarily executed at any hour of the day or night. They don't feel that their rulers are conspiring with the bloodsuckers behind their backs. They feel relaxed, secure, and in charge.
Coincidence? I think not.
Not necessarily in charge. Not always relaxed. But mostly secure, that's true.
They don't feel that their rulers are not conspiring with bloodsuckers, speaking of Europe. They suspect or even know that they do as well. But they have proportional representation electoral systems which make it easier for citizens to get rid of bloodsuckers. At least a little easier. And they don't know already today when their government of, say, 2034 is going to be elected. Americans do. America is like Ground Hog Day in its predictability - due to the sacred 18th century texts.
They, those other countries, keep rewriting their constitutions and they don't use outdated 18th century texts (the US being the only country on earth that still operates with 18th century laws and rules) and they don't treat ancient texts like some kind of bible because they are educated enough(!!!!) to know that these texts were written under the influence of 18th century conditions. They are equally educated enough to know that these conditions have changed dramatically since then.
AND: They don't think that owning and carrying a gun solves anything in the world.
Because: Contrary to Americans, they've actually experienced wars inside their countries (war = several 9/11s EVERY DAY in your back yard). Contrary to Americans, they often know war not just from movies, TV and computer games. Contrary to Americans, they know what it means to rebuild countries.
They believe in sane modern electoral procedures and in parliamentary democracies and accountabilities. And when they get pissed off, they know that the next election day is around the corner - with tons of parties to choose from, thanks to proportional representation.
That keeps those in power always a little afraid. Which is good.
Beats toting guns any time. But will never make it to headline news.
Araquin,
Your inability to learn from history is tragic. Technology may change, but human nature does not. 200 years is nothing on the evolutionary timeline. The same soul-less monopolists that robbed the colonist, are robbing you now. Through the 18th century Bill of Rights you have the tools to put them in check, if you are smart enough not to alter them into a meaningless diluted form.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
Of course it should be illegal to carry a gun into a high school auditorium packed with people and their President. But, would you want to go to a high school auditorium with a gun owner even if the President wasn't there?
Would you go to your son's high school basketball game if the opposing teams parents were 'packing heat'? I wouldn't.
I think the larger issue is: where is a gun prohibited, other than airplanes?
Ubrewl12
Very well stated.