Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Freedom From Fear—and the Second Amendment
Those of us living in the Rocky Mountains are steeped in America’s famous gun culture—and we therefore know well the binary debates surrounding the Second Amendment. Firearm enthusiasts—the vast majority of whom use weapons responsibly—believe the Constitution protects their right to bear arms. Gun control advocates counter that the Constitution doesn’t give anyone the inalienable right to wield automatic weapons that can kill scores of people in seconds.
This is the stultified freedom-versus-safety quarrel that seemed to forever define gun politics—that is, until anti-government activists started bringing firearms to public political meetings.
In early August, a protester came to a raucous Tennessee congressional forum packing heat. Days later, President Obama’s health care event in New Hampshire was marred by a protester posing for cameras with a pistol and sign reading, “It is time to water the tree of liberty”—a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote promising violence. And this past week, 12 armed men—including one with an assault rifle—not only showed off their firearms at Obama’s Arizona speech, but broadcast a YouTube video threatening to “forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority.”
These and other similar examples are accurately summarized with the same language federal law employs to describe domestic terrorism. Generating maximum media attention, the weapons-brandishing displays are “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population.” Yes, the gun has been transformed from a sport and self-defense device into a tool of mass bullying. Like the noose in the Jim Crow South, its symbolic message is clear: If you dare engage in the democratic process, you risk bodily harm.
With that implicit threat, the incessant arguments about gun ownership have been supplanted by a more significant debate over which should take precedence: the Constitution’s First or Second Amendment?
Based on America’s history, the Founders’ answer to that question clearly lies in the Bill of Rights’ deliberate sequencing.
The First Amendment ethos guarantees people—whatever their politics—a fundamental right to participate in their democracy without concern for physical retribution. It is the primary amendment because America was first and foremost created not as a gun-owners’ haven, but as a place to shelter citizens from oppression.
Over two centuries, we have taken this tradition seriously, enacting statutes reinforcing freedoms of speech, creating the secret ballot, and outlawing harassment at Election Day polling stations. This is why, whether tracing roots to colonial England, Nazi Germany or any other tyranny, so many Americans say they came here specifically looking for protection from political persecution.
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.
And so we face a choice that has nothing to do with health care, gun ownership or any other hot-button issue that protesters of both parties are fighting over. It is a choice about democracy itself—a choice that comes down to the two axioms best articulated by, of all people, Mao Zedong.
One option is willful ignorance: We can pretend the ferment is unimportant, continue allowing the intimidation and ultimately usher in a dark future where “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Better, though, is simply making public political events firearm-free zones, just like schools and stadiums. That way forward honors our democratic ideals by declaring that politics may be war, but in America it is “war without bloodshed”—and without the threat of bloodshed.
27 Comments so far
Show All"...making public political events firearm-free zones, just like schools and stadiums."
A good idea, but this will not deter the American Reich Wingers and gun nuts from brandishing weapons around the perimeters of events. American fascists love the First and Second Amendments...for only their exclusive purposes. Their perverted idea of "freedom" is limited to their interests. After all, anyone who thinks differently is un-American.
There is more discussion of American Reich Wingers, and who's a Nazi, at davedubya.com.
All you right wing Bush loving gun caring so called Patriots did nothing to stop warrant less surveillance, Data mining, protest the arrest of peace activists at Bush rally's.
It was ok for Bushy and company to stomp all over the lefts constitutional rights of freedom of speech , the first amendment, but now that you fear that Obama is a threat to the second amendment your all up arms , literally.
Just keep showing up at public events with guns, and when goes goes off and kills someone, by accident, we will see what comes of that. You are fools , and it would only take one incident to bring the FBI down on all gun ownership nation wide.
As a victim of right wing warrant less surveillance community watch gang stalking for 2.8 years and counting, its nice to know there will be a whole lot of folks being added to watch lists, welcome to the world of watch lists.
Welcome my fellow right wing Americans to the left wings world of no constitutional rights. Gang stalking torture should get you all straightened out.
Oh , and by the way , read the Patriot acts, YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Referring to democratic work on exploring reaching agreement on the common good in public policy as 'war' is not helpful but rather has already paddled off on a tributary of aggression.
I agree that questions of fear and courage are salient particularly when the representative bodies of the standing government are so addicted to policy advocating use of force.
public political events as firearm free zones strikes me as worth repeating and encouraging.
David, that doesn't seem to be too clearly thought-through.
We see a person standing there apparently unarmed: no fear. But then we see a holstered pistol: fear! Then we see a badge: no fear. Then we realise the badge doesn't say 'POLICE': fear! Then we realise the pistol is a squirt-gun: no fear. Then we happen to see a second, not-quite-hidden pistol: fear!
And all the time it's the same person, just standing there.
Or we see an armed cop and feel safe, unaware that the guy has a record that would have got him thrown off the force and sent to prison in any civilised jurisdiction.
When we fear a stranger because of what they look like instead of what they do, we've reverted to the most pre-rational of times.
Bush fought them over there - so the terrorists came over here.
Everybody just relax.
You like guns? Fine, just keep them in your closet unless you are target shooting. If you can't be satisfied unless you are killing something, see a psychiatrist.
If you want to play cowboy by carrying your .357 on your hip in a leather holster grow up.
If you think carrying a concealed weapon makes you invincible you are a fool.
You may need that gun someday. And if you have the reputation for waving it around all the time, somebody will be around to take it away from you before you get a chance to use it---and they won't care if they do have to pry it from your cold, dead, fingers.
Nietzsche
Bingo! You nailed it. A comment of reason and light. Well said.
Nietzsche, great points. Isn't it funny that recreational hunting and fishing are called "sports"?
Alcyon,
Being a hunter and fisherman I can see your point to a degree. But the definition of "sport" is "1 a : a source of diversion : recreation b : sexual play c (1) : physical activity engaged in for pleasure (2) : a particular activity (as an athletic game) so engaged in" (Webster on-line). So I don't think it is "funny", by which I assume you mean "odd", that hunting and fishing are called sports.
Perhaps you are using the Wiki definition of "Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determinant of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance) and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors. Sport is commonly defined as an organized, competitive and skillful physical activity requiring commitment and fair play. Some view sports as differing from games based on the fact that there are usually higher levels of organization and profit (not always monetary) involved in sports. Accurate records are kept and updated for most sports at the highest levels, while failures and accomplishments are widely announced in sport news." If so then yes it is odd that we consider hunting and fishing "sports". Do you have a better word/category in which to fit hunting and fishing?
OYE
I agree with the writer's genaral idea that political events should be gun-free. However, the phenomenon of persons carrying guns to such political events should not be a reason to villify gun owners in general.
It should also be mentioned that although gun carrying in political events with the purpose of intimidation is inexcusable, the special interest controlled congress and uncritical, business controlled media. This places the ordinary citizen in a position where he/she feels helpless and not listened to which could lead some persons to resort to undemocratic, bullying acts.
Lately, many politicians turned out to be "elected tyrants", not to exclude presidents. Once in office, they listen to no one. We must restore our democracy!
Of course firearms should be prohibited in certain areas because of common sense and for public safety. But........
If you don't hunt fine, but shut up about people that do. If you don't carry, fine, but shut up about people that do, the "carry law" states are the safest.
Anyone that wants to use the arguemant "that guns are a substuitute for a penis" needs a bit of readustment to reality.
Only a fool would think that you can keep guns out of the hands of criminals or out of any area that criminal wishes to enter by passing laws.
Our founding fathers were well aware that childish reasoning was no defense against a bayonet.
Henry8 believes that anyone who does not hunt and "carry" [is this supposed to mean displaying firearms?] should "shut up". Here is a suggestion Mr. Henry8. If you do not like the opinions that you see on this site, then why not visit one of the more rabid conservative blogs such as Little Green Footballs where you can spew your vitriol to your heart's content. In this country and especially on the Internet and on liberal web sites, believe it or not, one actually has a right to have an opinion, even if that opinion means disagreeing with the Second Amendment that so many gun fanatics hold so dear.
I also happen to agree, despite Henry8's dismay, that so many gun owners do seem to have an inferiority complex and need their guns in order to give credence [at least to themselves] of the macho image that they wish to convey to people around them. Also, as Nietzsche correctly implies, one has to justifiably wonder why people feel this compelling need to kill animals. Unless the neighborhood grocery store has suddenly run out of meat, a question that should be asked is why this overriding desire to kill an animal that has done no harm or intends no harm to the person with the rifle. I think Nietzsche is right. A visit to a psychiatrist might be in order to discover why hunters feel this overwhelming necessity to satisfy their bloodlust which manifests itself when hunting and stalking and slaughtering these innocent animals.
"Also, as Nietzsche correctly implies, one has to justifiably wonder why people feel this compelling need to kill animals. Unless the neighborhood grocery store has suddenly run out of meat, a question that should be asked is why this overriding desire to kill an animal that has done no harm or intends no harm to the person with the rifle."
People who hunt have a compelling need to kill animals? No. In many instances, people who hunt prefer the meat to that offered by the local grocer. It is far healthier with much less fat. In addition, animals hunted have a far greater chance of survival than do those who wind up in the butcher shop. They have no chance whatsoever. Believe it or not, hunting does benefit regional wildlife populations. Deer, elk, etc., often overpopulate the area in which they reside due to unchecked reproduction or encroachment of civilization. As a result of overpopulation, browse and other sources of food for the herd become scarce to non-existant, which results in many of the animals of the herd starving to death. Hunting is used as a tool by wildlife managers, who after doing population studies of whatever game animals inhabit an area, design hunting bag limits, which successfully reduce the population of a given herd to a population that can be adequately substained on the browse for that area. In addition, people who hunt buy hunting licenses. Hunting licenses are a tax, which is used exclusively for the management of healthy game populations. I used to hunt but do not do so any longer. However, I have no problem with people who do hunt or fish as at least they contribute money for the preservation of healthy wildlife populations (not just the animals they choose to hunt for, or the fish they fish for. Finally, yes, hunting is a sport. Successfully hunting and bagging a deer is not as easy as it may seem to some, especially if hunting with archery equipment in lieu of a gun. You cannot just walk up to a deer and gun it down. They won't wait for you to do that (unlike the animals that wind up as the meat you speak of in your grocery store.) Many people equate the "canned" hunts that they see on television (where a person sits in an air conditioned deer blind and waits for a tame domesticated game animal to be released in front of them to shoot, or like the quail released for Dick Cheney's bird hunts, those in which he shoots lawyers instead of the released birds) with actual hunting. I strongly oppose those "canned" hunts, but these do not equal the real deal. Successful hunting requires practice and patience. I don't personally know of anybody who hunts to satisfy a bloodlust or slaughter animals of any kind. Quite to the contrary, those I know who hunt get very disturbed at seeing these animals starve to death, which they do at far greater numbers than you might choose to imagine. Sorry, but if you eat meat, I don't see how you can condemn those who hunt. The only diference, beside game meat being more lean and healthy to eat, is that apparently they choose to let someone else literally slaughter their food animals, after spending a lifetime of agony in some feedlot being injected with hormones and fed the feces and remains of other animals. However, if you insist in doing so, at least put your money where your mouth is and buy a hunting license with a non-game (non-hunting) stamp. By doing so, you will be contributing to research and the management of healthy wildlife populations.
"I also happen to agree, despite Henry8's dismay, that so many gun owners do seem to have an inferiority complex and need their guns in order to give credence [at least to themselves] of the macho image that they wish to convey to people around them. "
I could agree to a point. Sure, some, perhaps many gun owners do have an inferiority complex and get a "macho" self image by owning or possessing a gun. In fact, I would say that this would apply to many if not most of the right wingers who strut their guns in public. But there are also many who own guns because they enjoy shooting/marksmanship, just as many own baseball bats because they enjoy baseball. I am certain you are aware that marksmanship is one of the oldest sporting events around and are present as a part of triathelons and even a specific olympic event. I would agree strongly with the arguement for gun free zones. Political rallies and events are most definately a place where guns do not belong. Perhaps one day soon, one of these whackos who want to intimidate those around them by carrying an assult weapon will learn what a popsicle feels like when the barrel of his assult weapon is deposited into the lower end of their digestive tract!
Peace my friend!
Aussidawg says "Sorry, but if you eat meat, I don't see how you can condemn those who hunt." Exactly, which is one of the reasons why I do not eat meat.
Henry8 is a bit of a jerk, but I agree with aussidawg: condemning hunting while still eating meat is an inconsistent position.
But this article and discussion have nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. These are the flak that gun lobbies send up to distract us from the actual issue, which is whether the public should be armed. The 2nd amendment clearly indicates that it should be -- albeit within organized militias. The Constitution does not say "the right to own a gun and do whatever the hell you want with it shall not be infringed"; it says "the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms" (caps mine, of course), which means to participate in an organized armed force. Why this is even controversial is a mystery, except that most Americans can't handle a sentence with a participle. And most Americans think the Constitution validates pure individualism -- another indication of their poor reading skills. (It starts with "We the People..."; that should be a clue.)
aussiedawg,
Excellent commentary!
It is hard for people who do not hunt to understand the myriad reasons people hunt. Having grown up hunting (mainly small game as there really were not hardly any turkey or deer to hunt in the 60's) and fishing and now living in southern Warren County in Missouri (very rural) my take is that the main reason most people hunt is for the meat. The thrill of the chase and kill come into play as it is an adrenaline rush--which can make it addicting like any thing else that gets the heart racing (sex, playing sports, driving fast, sky diving, etc. . . .)
I believe that if you eat the flesh of other animals then you should at some point kill, dress, cook and eat an animal. In my opinion one gets a greater appreciation for life in doing this. Look the animal in the eye, thank it for giving you nourishment--knowing that this is the way of the natural (outside of man even though he is a part of it, and I don't like using the word in this way but I haven't figured out another) world. Personally, I have feelings of sadness when I kill, whether a fish, bird or mammal as I have just taken a "life" but that is part of hunting/fishing.
My youngest son loves the outdoors and hunting and fishing. I have tried to instill in him that it is unethical to kill just to kill even though you can get a rush from it. His first "kill" was a crow (they are seen to be varmint like by many and the Conservation Dept allows a liberal taking) when he was 12 or so. We were camping and he called the crow in with his call. I didn't want him to shoot it but I thought it would be a "learning" moment--plus I didn't think he would be able to hit it at about 100 yards with an open sight .22. But sure enough he did and it dropped like a rock. We walked over to get it and I had him pick it up and admire the beauty of it--the irridescent black is amazing. He was proud of himself. I was proud of his shooting ability but not the killing and told him "that is the first and last time I expect you to kill something without eating it" and he understood. As an aside, I and my neighbors had pet crows growing up and I really like crows whereas my son has heard through others that "the only good crow is a dead one".
But to the topic at hand, political rallies should be "gun free" zones. Those who have chosen to bring weapons to these functions are wrong in doing so and are only using it as an intimidation tactic. Can you imagine what would have happened to someone had they brought a weapon to a Bush event? Would have been ugly for that person.
Thanks for proving the author's point about gun nuts and free speech.
You don't want democratic debate. You want to obnoxiously state your opinion and you want everyone who disagrees to "shut up."
Obvious double standard. A real nothing argument.
Henry8,
I agree with you comment "Anyone that wants to use the arguemant "that guns are a substuitute for a penis" needs a bit of readustment to reality." I've seen that nonsense before. My take on it is that perhaps those who say "guns are a substitute for a penis" just maybe have penis envy. HA! HA!
But when you tell people to "shut up" it weakens your argument and serves to make others to disregard what you have to say.
OYE
So your position is that a law abiding citizen carrying a gun in public is a terrorist threat of violence but a cop carrying both a gun and a tazer (torture device) is just a friendly howdy do? What a freaking rube. I always liked Sirota until just now.
dreamjoehill, you are attacking Henry8 unfairly. He said shut up about people who hunt and carry and not about anything else!
He still was advocating gun rights and telling those who disagree to shut up. Just because he limited his "shut up" order to two gun rights issues doesn't mean that he hasn't demonstrated intolerance.
I'll stand by my criticism.
What we need is an NAACP like group which promotes gun ownership (for self defense of course) in the African American and minority communities. Basically assists minorities to arm itself for defense and peaceful purposes. They can start showing up at all Republican political events and see how long it takes for gun-free zones at political events to become enacted into law. My bet is that it'd show just how hypocritical these lawmakers really are.
I the sixties, the Black Panthers armed themselves and were murderously persecuted by the Feds including widespread targeted assasination.
Of course since then guns have become very prevalent in many poorer black communities like Oakland, CA, Compton and the South Bronx. Is hasn't helped those communities at all.
gnken
Question to all pro and anti gun folks. Do you honestly think that a sane human "packing Heat" would actually use it on someone because they express there views at a public Town Hall Meeting? What do you think the backlash would be if someone open fired on an unarmed person? They're are idiots who will bring guns to such events, but the first one to open fire will make Kent State in 1970 look like a Scouts Jamboree. I certainly hope it never happens, so those idiots can carry there guns if they wish. Most of those gun carrying people are cowards anyway and need the security of a gun to show there tough. This is only my personal opinion.
Most vocal proponents of "the right to bear arms" are both stupid and ignorant yellow-bellied cowards who are not smart enough to articulate their beliefs. So, in their fearful states, they want to walk around with a loaded gun, because that makes them feel more like a powerful human being. And so many of them are so-called Christians, and I bet you the original tablets of the 10 Commandments that Jesus would have never carried a gun. Then again, Jesus was no coward and He feared no one. So, the scaredy-cats want the right to walk around with a loaded gun, so they can shoot whoever they encounter with more brains and education, because they fear both knowledge and common sense. Take away their loaded guns, and they cower with fear because they are weak human beings who do not understand fairness and compassion.
Dizi,
You stated "Most vocal proponents of "the right to bear arms" are both stupid and ignorant yellow-bellied cowards who are not smart enough to articulate their beliefs." I just checked and my belly is white (I've got a farmers tan even though I'm not a farmer) not yellow. How many vocal proponents of "the right to bear arms" do you personally know? Have you personally talked with any of them?
I suggest that you read Andre Comte-Sponvilles chapter on courage (the opposite of or lack of cowardice)in "A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues" to get an idea of what a coward can be. Is it not cowardice (lack of courage) that you display in using ad hominem attacks on those who believe in the 2nd amendment?
Too many questions, so little time,
OYE
How many vocal proponents of "the right to bear arms" do you personally know? Have you personally talked with any of them?
I know many, and they were all afraid of Saddam Hussein, a Third World bully who was nothing until the US gave him money and military training/equipment. And most of those folks will no longer speak to me, because I was against the Iraq War even before it started and everything I told (e.g. no WMD's, no mobile laboratories) proved to be true and the cowards do not have the balls to fess-up to their ignorance and stupidity. So because they fear knowledge, they refuse to speak to me any longer. I have lost a lot of friends because of the Iraq/Afghan Wars, because my ex-friends do not want to admit that they were wrong to support both illegal wars.
I am a southern redneck, so I do know many. But I have also traveled the world, I am a Vietnam Era veteran (did not serve in Vietnam) and I read a lot. I like journalist who report things that later turn out to be true. I was talking about the secret prisons in Afghanistan and the murder of Pat Tillman long before the MSM reported anything, because there were independent journalists reporting both stories.
And another thing regarding the 2nd Amendment: Does it give me the right to own and use jet fighters, predator drones, nuclear weapons? I do not think so, but when the 2nd Amendment was written, the definition of "arms" was not clearly stated, but I bet it meant more than owning a sling-shot and big stick.