I’m an advocate of very strong gun control laws, but I believe absolutely in the right to peacefully demonstrate against gun control. In fact, I believe in the right to peacefully demonstrate for whatever cause strikes your fancy, even if I find your beliefs to be utterly, unspeakably abhorent. Democracy demands nothing less.
Yesterday, a bunch of fairly right-wing gun-rights-advocates held a rally in Arlington - and they did it armed. Unloaded rifles slung on their backs, handguns loaded. Now, I don’t agree with their beliefs - but if they’d been unarmed, I’d have no issue with this.
But these folks were armed - and I believe that goes too far. I’m not speaking of this as a legal issue, and in fact I’m confident a law that said “people can carry guns in national parks, unless they are engaged in political demonstration” would be struck down very quickly indeed. As it probably should. With that said, I would submit there is something profoundly ugly with bringing guns to a demonstration. Yes, I understand they were making a point - but guns are too dangerous to be used to just “make a point”. Armed crowds start riots, fights - hell, a bunch of armed crowds booted out the government of Kyrgyzstan a couple weeks ago (though in fairness, they had legitimate gripes).
Political demonstrations that feel a need to be armed to make their point are the calling-cards of thugs, for the most part - movements interested in intimidation, not a real dialogue. And I think that what these people did was wrong. What say you, Teeming Millions?
The irony of this “protest” was that Obama had signed a law allowing guns to be carried in National Parks earlier this year. So they were essentially protesting the Presidents opening up parks for guns, as if this were somehow oppressing them.
Many of them appear to believe, quite sincerely, that the federal government intends to take away their guns, abolish state governments, or even establish a one-world government. (Sadly, I haven’t a cite at present - I’ve heard interviews on NPR, though.)
As to how they believe such a thing - I suspect it’s an artifact of the whole Internet Echo Chamber thing. It’s a lot easier to believe in absurdities when you can find hundreds of other people who believe the same things. The Internet ensures that almost no one need be isolated from fellows of like mind - that isn’t always a good thing.
I no longer accept “Sincerity” as an excuse because too many people think it is a virtue to be ignorant as long as they are sincere.
As far as bringing guns to protests? In my opinion, when you bring a weapon you are not protesting-you are threatening. You are saying, “If my words won’t convince you, my weapon will.”
I agree, on both counts - I used “sincerely” merely to describe the belief, not to excuse it. It takes a choice to believe such things - you need to choose to only read materials that reinforce your belief, you need to choose to avoid other sources that might make you question that belief, and above all else you need to choose to maintain the level of hate a paranoia that the belief requires.
When in a group, people will act differently. Remember the guy who threw money at the sick guy at the Tea Party protest over Health Care Reform? He feels terrible about what he did. He says he would never act that way but in a group, people will do things they wouldn’t normally do.
So bringing guns is dangerous because the gun owner, who may never do such a thing normally, may make some really bad decisions that are a lot worse than tossing a few dollars at someone.
Probably worse is that it is an inherent threat of violence. They are like organized crime demanding protection money. They are, in my opinion, terrorists. Their political message is ‘agree with my point of view, or I’ll kill you.’
It would be interesting to set off a few firecrackers within the hearing of these protesters, and see what develops.
I am 70% certain that calm, collected rationality would prevail.
Many of the Black Panthers’ public group appearances are effectively making the same point as this one was, though they would probably articulate it differently. I don’t know how these particular white guys would or do feel about Black Panthers, but I support both groups’ intrinsic point, as well as their right to make it.
This is essentially true, and it is also the embodiment of what I hold the Second Amendment to be all about: that in the final extremity, if necessary, rights–all of them–are and should be defended with force.
If you deny this, I must ask, what of police and military? Do you expect them to defend your rights in some circumstances? (Leave aside, for the moment, the matter of whether these institutions might be, in other circumstances, trampling your rights.) Why do you think it is more moral to ask others to wield violence, or the threat of violence, on your behalf, than to do it yourself? I submit that the truth is closer to the reverse.
And of course, we all remember that terrible tragedy in which a gun-rights protest turned violent, and dozens of people were wounded and killed in the crossfire. My gosh, I still shiver when I recall those horrible events.
Protests are occasions when people are likely to be feeling strong emotions.
Strong emotions and guns (or any other deadly weapon) are not a good combination.
That doesn’t mean I think it should (or could) be illegal to have weapons around when you’re feeling strong emotions. I just think it’s generally a bad idea. I know that eating six big samosas at the Indian buffet is a bad idea, too (firsthand, in this case), but I don’t think that should be illegal.
With respect - come on, guys. No one is arguing that these folks should not have been permitted to bring their guns to their demonstration. I’m saying that their conduct was legal, but assinine. It was assinine because guns are not mere protest placards (even strongly worded ones), a crowd with guns is qualitatively different from a crowd with banners, and that it’s incredibly inappropriate to bring a loaded gun to a word-fight. The unarmed, peaceful protest is a hallmark of democracy - the armed protest, even when not violent, is not a part of that tradition.
If we could trust the men and women we put in charge of our military and police forces, people wouldn’t need the right to bear arms, or even arm bears. In the long run, I’m sure it’ll be better for less people to own weapons, than if everyone has one, or is that too common sensical?
