So.
At the town hall meetings President Obama held, protesters arrived armed with weaponry like assault weapons. Which is totally cool, right? So not threatening. After all, carrying weapons to a political event in full view of other citizenry is totes fine. It's not like African-American men - or presidents - have historically been victims of gun violence. It's not like we live in a country where this specific man, this specific president, has had "kill him" shouted out during political rallies.
Oh, wait.
That is exactly the country we live in.
If we were a nation where the implicit violence of the gun was mostly theoretical, where people have not been cut down because of their viewpoints or their skin color, then perhaps carrying guns to political rallies would not be as bone-chilling and as stifling as it is. It would still be stifling. It would still be silencing. It would still hold that threat of death and destruction (what else is a gun truly for when shown to others, other than to scare those around you into *not* taking a specific action?), because it is still a mechanism used first and foremost to destroy - whether it be bullseyes, deer, human beings, a gun alone is a neutral destructive force, but a destructive force all the same - but it wouldn't be as bad.
However.
We don't live in that kind of nation. We live in a nation where gun violence isn't a small thing, where "in 2006, there were 30,896 gun deaths in the U.S: 12,791 homicides (41% of total deaths), 16,883 suicides (55% of total deaths), 642 unintentional shootings (2% of total deaths), 360 from legal intervention (1.2% of total deaths) and 220 from undetermined intent (.8% of total deaths)."
We live in a nation where threats of violence have been used to stifle political debate. We live in a nation where we have the freedom of speech, but the words "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" carries a particularly harrowing message, with a relatively recent and violent allusion I can't imagine we're supposed to miss.
Even if we were to give these particular gun-toting protesters the benefit of the doubt, even if the argument can be made that these particular protesters are obtuse and bereft of historical knowledge (and that argument, at least for one of these men, cannot be made, because as Bill Moyers pointed out on last Friday's Journal, his Myspace page makes it clear "he admires white supremacists"), it doesn't change one fact.
The freedom to bear arms is a right, but it also carries with it a responsibility. Even if none of these men would ever point a gun at President Obama, even if none of them would pull the trigger, they are still playing a deadly game. Because there are those out there who would, who wish to. And to add more guns - even legally displayed - to a crowd when the President is present, is at the least highly irresponsible and at the most incredibly dangerous. In their willful arrogance, they may not recognize that fact. They may actually believe that they are merely expressing, as the man carrying the assault weapon stated, that they "still have some freedoms". But they are responsible for being yet more people who could qualify as legitimate threats. They are responsible for the effect they have on the debate as a whole, a debate not even about guns or their control. They are responsible for racheting up the intensity and the fear and the uneasiness surrounding this particular issue. And they are responsible for their gross negligence of historical precedent.
9 comments:
Open carry is legal in Arizona.
By what ethical principle would you hold those who peacefully and lawfully carry weapons culpable for the actions of others who could potentially use weapons unlawfully?
Consider that many people who support open carry laws -- the people who are most likely to bring guns to political rallies -- believe that these laws actually reduce violence.
The evidence on this is a bit ambiguous, but it's highly controversial to argue that open carry laws actually increase violence. Intelligence Squared had a good debate on this issue a while back. (I can only find the transcript online, but you could probably get the audio on iTunes.)
Also, do you have a link to that Bill Moyers show? From what I've seen, "Chris" -- the guy who was actually interviewed carrying an assault weapon -- is black.
Who is Bill Moyers talking about?
By what ethical principle would you hold those who peacefully and lawfully carry weapons culpable for the actions of others who could potentially use weapons unlawfully?
I'm not holding them culpable for potential unlawful actions taken. I'm saying that (a) carrying weapons to political rallies that are - first of all - not even *about* gun control is a measure that stifles debate, and (b) that, given the historical circumstances surrounding guns and presidents - and guns and black men - that bringing guns to debates that are - again - *not* about gun control carries with it an implicit allusion to those events that came before. In a country where item (b) is not an issue, perhaps carrying a weapon to a rally would not be such a big deal. But in *this* country, it is a big deal and it is impossible for me to think that those doing the carrying of the guns don't realize that they are not merely exercising their second amendment rights.
The evidence on this is a bit ambiguous, but it's highly controversial to argue that open carry laws actually increase violence.
I'm not arguing that it increases violence. I am arguing that, given the amount of threats President Obama has received, as well as the uptick in gun ownership and the uptick in white supremicist organizations, bringing more guns for the Secret Service and law enforcement to have to keep track of when the president is present is irresponsible. I personally would go so far as to call it reprehensible.
Also, do you have a link to that Bill Moyers show? From what I've seen, "Chris" -- the guy who was actually interviewed carrying an assault weapon -- is black.
Who is Bill Moyers talking about?
You can actually get the video podcast through iTunes (I just get the audio), but the transcript is also here:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08142009/transcript4.html
You said, "it is impossible for me to think that those doing the carrying of the guns don't realize that they are not merely exercising their second amendment rights."
Don't you think this is an issue, though? You're looking at this from the perspecitve of a northeastern liberal who's pro-gun control. The culture in the South is unique, and Southerns (of every race) look at right-to-carry laws very differently.
By insisting that it's impossible to think that most Southerns see this as a strictly constitutional issue, you're imposing your own biases on their culture.
By insisting that it's impossible to think that most Southerns see this as a strictly constitutional issue, you're imposing your own biases on their culture.
I'm not denying that Southerners may see this as being primarily a constitutional issue. I'm saying that if a person is an American born citizen who has gone through the American school system or lived in America, then it is impossible to not know about Lincoln, JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. That it is impossible to not recognize how carrying a gun to a presidential rally after Reagan was shot, after people have been shouting "kill him" about Obama at other political rallies, is not simply a constitutional issue, that there are other issues swirling around it - especially when it is also met with signs that reference Jefferson's Tree of Liberty quote, a quote that has been previously used by no less a threat than Timothy McVeigh. I think that to ignore all of that, or to insinuate that Southerners somehow missed all of those separate memos, is to miss out on a big part of this whole thing.
So, no. I don't think it is my "liberal New England, pro-gun control" bias. Because that is ignoring the signs, the Nazi references, and the fact that these town hall meetings have absolutely nothing to do with gun control.
Also, I think an important part of this is that this isn't limited to the South.
One of the protesters who galled me the most, the one with the gun strapped to his leg and the 'Tree of Liberty' sign in his hands, was in New Hampshire. To make it a Southern vs Northern issue is to erase that man, and a large part of the debate.
The other thing is that I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to carry guns in public. I'm not personally for it, but that's why I live in CT (my living in CT may also be one of the contributing reasons I am uncomfortable with guns in public places).
Ok, Bill Moyers was talking about the dude from New Hampshire.
You're right that the north-south dichotomy is an oversimplification on my part. But this is a cultural issue. New Hampshire often called red state masquerading as a blue state. As far as I know, it's the only northeaster state that has open carry -- and that is very telling.
Moyers said, "So you can see, perhaps, why it's hard even to describe as protests what's happening today -- the raucous disruption of town meetings that deny others their right to free speech. The cries of tyranny, the analogies to Hitler on the signs and in postings on the internet. That's not conscience at work; it's the product of colicky, cranky unconscionable anger, fueled by lies."
If he has a problem with this kind of protest, he could've spoken up during the many anti-war rallies, where President Bush was repeatedly compared to Hitler. Or during the RNC, when many liberal protesters turned violent.
I don't know much about the New Hampshire incident, and Moyers doesn't explain which "white supremacist" leaders the man allegedly references on his MySpace page.
Certainly some right-wing protesters are motivated by racism. But pro-gun advocates are not, in the aggregate, compelled by white supremacist ideology. Some media outlets seem to be going out of their way (and potentially fudging the facts) to portray pro-gun advocates as racist nuts.
But for most gun advocates, this is fundamentally about freedom, not the "other issues" that you're trying to invoke. In their mind, guns are not something you associate with violence against innocents or presidential assassination -- they're something you associate with freedom.
The fact that you associate guns with these things doesn't mean that they do. I think it's unfair for you to attribute bad faith motives to these protestors.
*is often called a
But for most gun advocates, this is fundamentally about freedom, not the "other issues" that you're trying to invoke.
And if these were town hall meetings about gun control legislation, I'd be more inclined to agree with you. But they're not. They're health care legislation town hall meetings.
The other thing is that implying that gun advocates are only thinking in terms of freedom is ignoring the fact that they don't get to automatically control the nature of the debate or how bringing guns to town hall meetings is interpreted by the public at large. They don't get to distance bringing guns to a presidential town hall meeting spot from the fact that threats have been made - openly - against this president's life. And since in my research, I've only seen protesters bringing guns to Obama's rallies, I'm even more inclined to believe there is a correlation between the two events. I'm not saying that every person - or even almost all - who brings a gun to a rally is consciously intending for their message to be seen as a potentially violent one. But considering when bringing guns to rally sites is prevalent and when it is not, it is an issue that - I think - has a lot to do with the fact Obama is black and Obama is a liberal president. Just like the increase in threats against Kennedy was because Kennedy was Catholic and Kennedy was a liberal president.
If he has a problem with this kind of protest, he could've spoken up during the many anti-war rallies, where President Bush was repeatedly compared to Hitler.
He does have a problem with this kind of protest. And just because he (like everyone else on the planet, even you and even me) isn't always ethically or journalistically consistent doesn't mean he doesn't have a point, or that he isn't right. It just means that he failed to hold himself and those of his ideology to the same standard. You can call him out on that, but failing to be perfect is kind of a major part of the human condition.
The fact that you associate guns with these things doesn't mean that they do. I think it's unfair for you to attribute bad faith motives to these protestors.
I think the fact that the guy in New Hampshire was carrying the "Tree of Liberty" sign means that I'm not attributing bad faith motives to the particular protesters I'm calling out.
Again, I have a personal problem with seeing guns strapped to people's legs, or knowing that a person can legally carry a concealed firearm into a town hall or a church. Because of that (along with some other issues, like weather patterns), there are huge swaths of the country I will never live in. At the same time, I respect that is how they roll, and I don't seek to change it. As long as the state I live in does have gun control laws I feel comfortable with, I'm cool.
I don't like guns, but I'm not anti-gun. I have no Constitutional argument for people not owning guns. I would prefer they didn't, but that's my own hang up.
What I do think is that guns shouldn't be mixed with presidents, that bringing a gun to a rally puts presidents in danger, and that along with the right to arms, a responsible person would recognize how - even though their gun is a freedom issue and they wouldn't shoot at a person much less a president - they are still a security concern for the Secret Service because they can't take it on faith that these people aren't a threat.
Post a Comment