CollegeTimes

Politics and Packin’ Heat

guntownhallJust about 10 percent of our presidents have been assassinated while in office. Of those four, three were shot with handguns and one with a rifle (or rifles, depending on which conspiracy theory you prefer). You’d think we might be a little sensitive to people carrying firearms at presidential events — or political events of any kind, for that matter. But no — not in the goofy, wild-wild-west culture of America.

This photo shows a man carrying an assault rifle and a pistol at one of President Obama’s town hall meetings. Knowing how these people think, I assume both weapons were loaded. When this wacko was asked why he attended a presidential event so heavily armed, he answered, “Because I can do it. In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.”

The next photo is of a man at another of President Obama’s town hall meetings. He was more lightly armed, packing only a semi-automatic pistol. This ersatz hero carried a sign reading, as you can see, “It is time to water the tree of liberty!” When asked in an interview on TV if the weapon had been loaded, he responded with words to the effect that of course it was; what use is an unloaded gun?

The sign being held by the doofus-looking guy in this photo refers to a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

guntownhall21

Granted, this fellow may not be sufficiently educated to know the full quote; he may be just parroting some blather from one of his NRA meetings. But, given that he was carrying a weapon near the President, we have to assume that he knows what he’s saying. Therefore, it’s logical to conclude that an armed man was threatening the President’s life.

My question is, why weren’t both of these idiots arrested, if only to be held until the President was no longer in the area? No, seems we can’t do that. Politicians are too frightened of any group that can muster a few folks to vote one way or another, whether it’s the NRA or the DailyKos crowd. The White House even stated that they had no objections to the armed men attending the President’s town hall meetings because they have the right to be armed.

Of all the circumstances in which it’s wrong to permit people to carry weapons, proximity to the President has to be among the worst — right up there with kids’ soccer games, in public parks, near schools and churches, in or near bars, in cars and trucks (road rage, anyone?), in the supermarket…. If citizens must be allowed to have handguns, they should be outlawed anywhere outside the home, where paranoids can barricade themselves for as long as they like and wait for the black helicopters to land on their lawn.

I made my views on gun control clear in an earlier article. Handguns, which are designed for efficiently killing people — and do it quite well — should be outlawed. Period. The only people who should be able to legally own and carry handguns are sworn law enforcement officers and a few categories of carefully vetted security personnel. Private ownership of long guns, basically rifles and shotguns, should be permitted, with licensing and other restrictions.

Please don’t undertake to educate me on the Second Amendment. I know what it says, word-for-word; I know the relevant constitutional history; and I’ve read the legal cases. That includes District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment means an individual has the right to possess a firearm. I don’t disagree with that decision, just as I don’t disagree with the long list of firearms that are already constitutionally banned. If we can outlaw private possession of automatic weapons, shotguns with barrels too short, and mortars, we can also consign handguns to the trash heap.

If we can’t make that leap into the modern world, how about making it illegal to carry a firearm at or near a political event? Is that too much to ask?

(This article was also posted at Opinion Forum.)

About the Author

Jesse

Tags:

3 thoughts on "Politics and Packin’ Heat"

  1. Tom Carter says:

    I agree with the D.C. v. Heller ruling because I think it accurately reflects what the Second Amendment really means, not what I wish it meant. That’s what courts are supposed to do–interpret the Constitution and the laws as accurately as they can. However, given that dangerous weapons have long been outlawed, I think handguns could be outlawed without violating the Constitution.

    Let’s also remember that the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government. It does not apply to states or lower levels of government, although that may change someday. Right now, the Ninth Circuit is in the process of deciding the issue for states under its jurisdiction, but an eventual Supreme Court decision on incorporating the Second Amendment against the states will probably come. (The facts of incorporation of the first eight amendments against the states is discussed here.) At the moment, each state (possibly except those in the Ninth Circuit) can make their own decisions regarding gun laws without regard to the Second Amendment.

    States, counties, cities, etc can outlaw handguns today, consistent with their own laws and state constitutions. So while it might be a problem for the federal government, other governments could do it without a Second Amendment question arising.

  2. Karamel318 says:

    I can agree with some of what you’ve said, but please don’t reduce all gun owners to a crazy,paranoid stereotype.In doing so, you would only paint yourself as incredibly ignorant of the gun owning community.Many are law abiding(as regulations and background checks can attest to) citizens who are responsible owners and pass that on to their children. We are not all wackos, and certainly you cannot deny the legitimate concern people have without being protected by a firearm.It is valid. Many lives have been saved by such weaponry, and to counteract an argument that many lives have been taken as well is true, but most(and I understand most) who do are criminals and certainly them possessing guns won’t go away even if all are thrown into your trash heap.

    And I don’t mean to insult you, so please don’t take my remarks that way. I am trying to reconcile your whole article with the sentence that you agree with District of Columbia v. Heller- why do think that case had the right outcome?

    If you respond, I hope it’s only to encourage a good discussion on firearms and gun ownership, and not to reduce my remarks to those of some wacko.I’m learning from you, maybe I can offer you some insight as well(hot button issue and all).

  3. JJ says:

    Tom, I also can’t figure out why Americans can’t understand the 2nd amendment – it was created with the understanding that our country would never have a permanent “standing army” to protect against past infringements, like British troops knocking on doors at night and stealing food and sleeping in our beds. How in God’s name can anyone justify owning an M-16 in stable, democratic 2009?…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*