You know, I’m a free speech absolutist, and a staunch civil libertarian. But quite honestly, if you’re going to bring a gun to a town hall meeting held by the President of the United States, you probably should, at the very least, get a visit from the Secret Service:
A man carried a handgun strapped to his leg to a town hall meeting being held by President Obama in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on Tuesday.
It’s legal for him to have the gun as long as it is unconcealed, the police told MSNBC. The man was on private property — church ground on the roadway leading to the high school where Obama would speak. The church gave the man permission to be there. However, according to police officers, he is under constant surveillance and is not anywhere near where the president will speak.
You know what? I don’t care if it’s legal for you to carry a gun in New Hampshire — you don’t carry a gun to a protest against the President of the United States. You especially don’t carry a gun while holding a sign that says “It is Time To Water the Tree of Liberty!” For those of you who’ve forgotten your Revolutionary War-era Thomas Jefferson quotes beloved by libertarian types, the full quote is, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Quite simply, carrying a firearm to a protest against the president, while holding a sign threatening violence against tyrants, is, if not illegal, than deeply immoral to the point of pure anti-Americanism. Had our country never lost a leader to gun violence, one might feel differently, but we’ve lost four; when one out of every eleven presidents has been shot and killed, and more than twenty percent of presidents have had shots fired at them, it’s impossible to view this as anything other than a direct threat on the president’s life.
Of course, the man carrying the gun, William Kostric, is unrepentant. He sees nothing wrong with implied threats on a president’s life, nothing wrong with the direct implication that our government leaders should be killed. He just wants, in his words, “an informed society, an armed society, a polite society.” Which is why he was carrying a sign calling for the death of tyrants.
We are steering down a dangerous course. While the health care proposal is modest by world standards, people are decrying this as some kind of Trojan horse for communism, Nazism, the theft of our nation’s vital bodily fluids, and the end of life on Earth. With the stakes raised so ludicrously high, and with the anger being fed at such a fever pitch, I fear that threats of violence will not be where this ends. After all, if Barack Obama was planning on herding our parents into death camps, seizing everyone’s bank account, and creating a panel that would decide who lives and who dies, I would be the first one on the line in the ensuing revolution. He isn’t, of course, doing any of those things. But a huge subset of the right, fed by people who should know better, thinks he may be. This does not end well, I fear. I hope I’m wrong.
OMG! I took a picture of this guy and was horrified by his sign. I didn’t know he had a gun when I took it! Yikes. Here’s my picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jan_andrea/3812170619/
I decided today, after shaking my head over yet another ridiculous load of BS from Sarah Palin, Investors’ Business Daily* and similar twits, not to bother reading any critique of the health care reform proposals that doesn’t cite to the specific bill and either the section or page of the bill on which the criticized proposal appears. That winnows down the reading material to the CBO and about a dozen genuine health care policy geeks.
(For the conservatives on this blog, please do us all a favor and read the legislation before launching into a rant about how other people — e.g. Congressmen — haven’t read the legislation. Then specify which parts you’re having a problem with.
House bill
Senate bill)
* The now memory-holed paragraph from the IBD editorial originally said, “”The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof, are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror script … People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.”
Of course, Hawking is British and a professor at Cambridge. His response was, “I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived.” Had Hawking lived his life in the U.S. — first showing signs of ALS when he was a 21-year-old grad student — he probably would have been deemed un-insurable due to a preexisting condition under our private system, and ended up on Medicare (single payer for the elderly and disabled).
Why did you file this under “neoconservative zaniness, Pres. Bush, etc.”? Did you even watch the interview with the man? He voted for Ron Paul. Hardly a neoconservative.
You know what? I don’t care if it’s legal for you to carry a gun in New Hampshire — you don’t carry a gun to a protest against the President of the United States.
So existing laws and rights don’t apply when the President is involved? Hmm, OK. Well, I can’t say I haven’t heard that before, anyway.
Pingback: In Which I Indulge the Jackboot Analogy « Kittywampus
I am old enough to remember the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King, Jr. I remember the attempted assassination of Ford, Reagan, and George Wallace. I do not understand the lack of security for Obama; and, fear I will live through another assassination.
I would certainly support restricting this man’s 2nd Amendment rights if he was actually at or within shooting range of the facility where the President was speaking. But I can’t see that it’s immoral for him to carry it while he’s nowhere near the President, even considering what his sign says. He’s got every right to exercise both his First Amendment and his Second Amendment rights simultaneously. In this case his carrying the gun can be seen as much as a form of speech or expression, demonstrating that Americans have the right to have the means to defend themselves against the government and to overturn it by force if necessary.
That’s and self-defense are what the 2nd Amendment is all about, after all – it wasn’t put in there to make sure people could go hunting. I don’t see it as a direct threat against the President. I see it as a reminder of what Americans’ rights are. From what I’ve seen of the Town Hall meetings on this plan people see it as the Congressional Democratic leadership’s bill rather than Obama’s, anyway. I don’t see the focus as being tight on Obama on this.
I do also fully support the Secret Service keeping a close eye on him, at least while the President is in town. No need to be stupid about this.
Bonnie, I’m not clear on what you mean by the lack of security for the President. Are you referring to this specific incident? Because the story says that this man is nowhere near the President.
Also, Amp, what Anderew said.
Now, I need this explained:
First, we see:
A man carried a handgun strapped to his leg to a town hall meeting being held by President Obama in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on Tuesday.
Then we see:
However, according to police officers, he is under constant surveillance and is not anywhere near where the president will speak.
Is the President speaking at the town hall meeting? I’m presuming so, and on that basis I’m trying to understand how this man can both be carrying a handgun to a town hall meeting being held by President Obama and yet not be anywhere where the President will speak.
1) Fair point regarding the category name (although I don’t know why Ron addressed me instead of Jeff). I’ve changed the name of the category, since I think a more general category name makes more sense for how we actually use it.
2) I agree that this man had every right to both have his gun and demonstrate. That doesn’t mean he has a right to freedom from criticism for his acts, however. He has every right to wear a gun and carry a sign about killing tyrants, and everyone else has the right to find his acts rather stupid and in poor taste.
3) Ron, I think he was “at” the town hall meeting in the sense of being outside the building demonstrating while the meeting took place. I don’t think the Secret Service would have allowed him to be in the same room as the President.
Sorry about that – it was late and I failed to think clearly enough.
Poor taste? I don’t know if I’d use that as a descriptor, particularly. But certainly open to criticism. I wouldn’t have done it. And he’s being criticized plenty from numerous stalwart defenders of the 2nd Amendment and opponents of the health care proposals on the basis that he’s given Obama’s supporters a propaganda talking point.
I don’t know if I can accept that, Amp. If I tell you I’m at a meeting, do you place me down the street or in the room? Again, at the end of the cited selection the police are reported as saying that he wasn’t “anywhere near” where the President spoke. Seems to me that the writer placed a higher priority on sensationalism than on the truth in his or her lead.
From what I’ve seen of the Town Hall meetings on this plan people see it as the Congressional Democratic leadership’s bill rather than Obama’s, anyway. I don’t see the focus as being tight on Obama on this.
So why are the reform proposals, among those who are opposed to them, being called “ObamaCare” rather than “DingellCare” or “DemocratCare”?
Just from an article I already have up in my browser:
The idea that the reform proposals aren’t being tied to Obama — despite his not having formulated them, in contrast to the “HillaryCare” proposals that genuinely did originate with Mrs. Clinton — is ludicrous. There are nearly 60 million hits on Google for Obama-care (variants including ObamaCare, Obama Care, etc.).
I’m sure that Mr. Stahl will decline Medicare and pay for any health care in cash out of pocket, won’t you, Mr. Stahl? Mr. Stahl????
My family and I stayed in a hotel where Bush was going to be staying the next day in St Louis.
I can’t imagine after seeing what I saw anyone complaining about the right to bear arms around the president. We were debating “bomb threat or not” while watching the security in mass go up around the hotel. As Canadian’s we saw it as anything but pretty scary/interesting; 40+ guys with sunglasses and “walkie-talkies” surrounding the hotel with another 40 or so inside.
We went to the hotel bar that night, meet a few of those guys (actually not those guys but his outer circle wanting to get in, running for governor etc), found out why they were there, and checked out before Bush checked in, luckily. The hotel would not tell us what was going on.
Right-wings concerned about any kind of crowd control? Pretty hypocritical even in my limited knowledge of walking through the security checks we walked though just staying in the same hotel the president would be staying in after we check out.
A walking Con Law essay prompt: conservative blogger and talk radio host calls for the deaths of three 7th Circuit judges (including two of the most famous judges in the country, Posner and Easterbrook); refers to their not having learned a lesson from another Chicago judge whose mother and husband were killed by a disgruntled plaintiff; and posts a map of the 7th Cir. courthouse with helpful notes about where the anti- truckbomb barriers are.
Looks like the line about blood of tyrants replenishing the tree of liberty has become very popular indeed. I wonder if there is any point at which conservatives will begin to decry — i.e., criticize on a moral and prudential basis — its use.
RE: John Stahl and the Berks Tea Party.
The following was posted on the Berks County Reading Eagle newspaper in June:
”
CALL TO ARMS….CALL TO ARMS…..JULY 4TH….INDEPENDENCE HALL- PHILADELPHIA..READ ON ALL PATRIOTS. NOW IS YOUR CHANCE TO GET IN OBAMA’S FACE. SIGN UP NOW $30.00 PER PERSON. ————–BERKS TEA PARTY. ORG HEAR YE, HEAR YE: Let me give you a quick update on what’s been happening. I am sorry that I haven’t communicated with you before. We have been busy getting everything prepared. We have joined with the Philadelphia area tea party groups as well as statewide and national groups. We have organized a bus trip to Philadelphia for a protest on July 4th at Independence Hall. I understand that Obama will be there so we need a good turnout. We will have our website up and running soon. It will be www berksteaparty org. For the time being you can contact us through berksteaparty @ hotmail com————THE TIME TO STAND IS NOW! THE FACT THAT THIS ABORTION OF A PRESIDENT WILL BE AT INDEPENDENCE HALL STANDING ON OUR HALLOWED GROUND IS ENOUGH TO MAKE ONE SICK. MAKE YOUR SIGNS. MAKE THEM BIG. GET ON THE BUS. GO TO PHILLY. BOO THE CRAP OUT OF THIS ILLEGAL PRESIDENT. (caps added by me)
COMMENT BY BEACHMAN 101 AT 6/23/2009 1:04:07 PM
”
I see NOTHING about Taxes or Health Care in that posting.
I can’t find the quotes, but the Tree of Liberty comment was isolated to other comments he made later as he found out more about what was actually going on as the French Revolution left the realm of liberty to mob rule. His later comments to John Adams and Francois de Marbois clarified and modified these comments. Mr. Jefferson was quite aware of the fact that to defeat tyranny sometimes actions become extreme. He had witnessed this in the South during the revolution and even Washington gave orders during the Clinton Sullivan campaign that could only be interpreted as genocidal towards Native Americans. Only to face more passive rebellions by his own supporters and troops to stop unreasoned zeal on the part of their leaders. Which is part of why our founding fathers became so great. They had to deal with a populace that was more interested in justice than in blind obedience to a leaders policy. To read this isolated comment without examining the reference in context to what else he said, did and the greatness of not only our leaders, but the amazing people who followed them, facing bullets, starvation, poor training and supply is a disservice to those revolutionaries who changed the world for the better. It should also be noted that his greatest political rival repeatedly, but specifically in his “Report On The Manufactures” felt regulation of commerce was not only acceptable, but necessary for Adam Smith’s vision of capitalism. Irregardless of differences he was instrumental in Mr. Jefferson becoming our third president. Freedom meant cooperation even to the two most polarized of our founding fathers. These are the nutrients of the manure of Liberty. Forcing your will upon others irregardless of the system these two geniuses of our founding gave us based on modern day “sound bites” is the odorous excrement of a different tyranny and a insult to those that not only stood against tyranny of monarchy, but potential tyranny of their own liberty. BG