No guns at political events is freedom from fear

Those of us living in the Rocky Mountain region 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.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising" and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail ds@davidsirota.com.

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Displaying comments, from newest to oldest

Hulk's picture

What about all the guns that

What about all the guns that the politicians body guards are carrying?
Is Mr. Sirota really advocating no guns, or guns only for the "privileged" class?
.
"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.""

As in the Democrats policy of using the Police power of the state to forcibly redistribute income to buy votes?

We need not fear citizens with guns, it is government with guns that is to be feared.

veritas's picture
verified

We need not fear citizens

We need not fear citizens with guns? Consider the following:

In 2005, 11,346 of 16,692 homicides in the U.S. were commited with guns. (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm)

In the same year there were 766 homicides in England and Wales, of these, only 50 were comitted with guns. (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf)

Guess which of the two countries has gun-control. We didn't have quite six times the population of England and Wales in 2005, but we had almost 22 times the homicides, with 2/3 of those being caused by guns. And Hulk doesn't think we need to fear our citizens?

What planet has he been vacationing on??

Now if Hulk believes that the gun-owning public can keep government at bay, he probably has no idea of the firepower available to the U.S. military. I've asked him on a number of occasions if he had ever enlisted in the military. He always avoids answering.

------------------------------------------
When I was a young Sailor - I drank like a Sailor, fought like a Sailor, and screwed like a Sailor. Now that I am old and wise - I have a few scars, but many fond memories.

jchick's picture
verified

Which of those 11,346

Which of those 11,346 homicides do you suppose were perpetrated by law-abiding citizens?

Prior to last years elections, there were an estimated 80 million gun owners in this country who collectively own somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million firearms. Since the election, firearms have been flying off the shelves in record numbers, yet there has not been an increase of firearm homicides. On the contrary, in states where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms for personal defense, the violent crime rate has gone down.

The vast majority of those gun related homicides are gang violence. We do not have a gun problem in this country, we have a criminal problem. New York city has some of the most restrictive firearm regulations in this country, yet it has some of the worse gun related violence. That is changing, not because of stricter firearm regulations, but because they have finally begun to target the source... i.e. the gang bangers and the criminals.

Richmond Virginia is another success story. Instead of passing more restrictive firearm regulations (like various citys in Pennsilvania), local law enforcement teamed up with the VA State Police, the FBI and ATF to go after the gang bangers and other criminals, and have enacted tougher penalties for illegal possession of firearms by known felons.

Comparing the US to places like England is comparing apples to oranges. For one thing, the overall violent crime rate in the UK has increased since their government has disarmed law-abiding citizens, and in their twisted court systems, they prosecute people who try to defend themselves against an attacker. Gun control does not address the problem. It only disarms the intended victims.

I do not fear my fellow law-abiding citizens, nor do I fear the dregs of society who perpetrate the crimes that make up those statistics. To disarm the public because a small fraction of individuals choose to commit crimes with firearms is not only unconstitutional, it is unconscionable.

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would." -- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851)

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

The U.S. military is made up of men and women who swore an oath to "...protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic..." Their duty is to the Constitution and The People of the United States first, the Commander in Chief second. I believe the vast majority of them would have a hard time firing on their fellow citizens. I know I would. Neither should we underestimate the courage and tenacity of a patriot defending his or her freedom. That is why every tyrannical regime in history has made firearm confiscation one of its first priorities when coming to power.

John A. Chick

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

Pirate's picture
verified

We must not forget that

We must not forget that everything our government is trying to do to us or "for" us, they are doing so while we still retain the right to bear arms. If we ever give that one up, we are SCREWED!!!

Fear not the enemy at the gate, for it is the enemy within that will devour you.

veritas's picture
verified

You got gun owners, and you

You got gun owners, and you got gun nuts.

It usually doesn't take too long to figure out the difference.
------------------------------------------
When I was a young Sailor - I drank like a Sailor, fought like a Sailor, and screwed like a Sailor. Now that I am old and wise - I have a few scars, but many fond memories.

Hulk's picture

Gun nuts are the ones who

Gun nuts are the ones who have an irrational fear of lawful citizens openly carrying firearms.

Barb's picture

OMG not a gun. When I grew

OMG not a gun. When I grew up in rural Maine a lot of people had guns on racks in their trucks and really no one felt threatened. People exercising their second admendment right is not a threat. I think that the only one threatened was a certain TV host that has a man crush on Obama and of course most far left liberals. Also this article didn't mention that a certain gun toter was african american. It seems that liberals want to portray most conservative white people as a threat to the country and Obama. It's funny how sometimes certain facts are left out of story just to further the liberal adjenda.

AllarieLarsen's picture

If a liberal had shown up at

If a liberal had shown up at an anti-Bush/Iraq/Katrina/or any other failure of the last administration, with a gun, my guess is he would have been shot!

Hulk's picture

And how do you know they

And how do you know they didn't?
If they had, the likely hood of the press reporting so would be about zero.

Only a Liberal would call a war that we overwhelmingly won with minimal casualties a "failure".

To find true failure just look to the history of your movement. Stalin, Hitler, Castro, the USSR, etc. all huge Liberal/Socialist/Statist failures.

Wherever your policies are enacted there follows loss of freedom, suffering and death..

Pirate's picture
verified

Only if he drew first. Fear

Only if he drew first.

Fear not the enemy at the gate, for it is the enemy within that will devour you.

jchick's picture
verified

Mr Sirota, I take issue with

Mr Sirota,

I take issue with some of the statements you make in your article. I doubt very much that those individuals who bore arms at those various events intended to intimidate their fellow citizens. Government, maybe, citizens, no. If you are going to quote Thomas Jefferson, why not include the whole context?

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson from a letter to William Stevens Smith (November 13, 1787), quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

And about the order of the first "10" Amendments to the Constitution. What we know as the first and second Amendments were actually the third and fourth in the original "Bill of Rights" submitted to Congress for deliberation. The order of their appearance in the list does not in any way make one right more important than the other. In fact, it has often been pointed out that without the 2nd Amendment, the people might be in jeopardy of loosing their other rights.

Consider the following:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved), or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

I agree that those citizens bearing their personal arms to town hall meetings and venues perhaps displayed poor judgement, but that is not a crime. The People are the supreme authority in this country, not the government. We seem to have forgotten that important distinction.

"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights... and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him... and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Francis W. Gilmer (June 27, 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.

Gun free zones are target rich environments. THAT is the lesson we should learn from these tragic public shootings. You are afraid to see people bearing arms? What about the firearms you don't see? It would not deter an assassin by making political gatherings gun-free zones. Are you afraid to see policemen bearing arms?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [to secure the rights of the people], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...." -- from the Declaration of Independence, also by Thomas Jefferson.

John A. Chick

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey (January 6, 1816)

Advertisement