I’m interested to see if there is any position on which Gherald will disagree with his anointed BFF Megan McArdle. Here’s a candidate:
So is this guy a terrifying threat to democracy? Or just a civic-minded citizen? If you think that his position on healthcare changes the likelihood that he will discharge that weapon, is this a rational belief?And, because I’m on vaca, I’ll let Zengerle refute:I think carrying guns to protests is entirely counterproductive. Indeed, I’m not sold on the general virtues of protesting, which worked for Gandhi and the civil rights marcher, but has a dismal track record on other concerns. But I think people have a perfect right to do it, including with guns, though I also think the secret service is within its rights to ensure that they don’t have a sight line on the president…
Numerous people claim to believe that this makes it likely, even certain, that someone will shoot at the president. This is very silly, because the president is not anywhere most of the gun-toting protesters, who have showed up at all sorts of events. It is, I suppose, more plausible to believe that they might take a shot at someone else. But not very plausible: the rate of crime associated with legal gun possession or carrying seems to be very low.
Look, just on a basic level, the Secret Service’s capacities aren’t infinite: protecting the president is hard enough in normal circumstances; throw in the job of making sure gun-toting protestors don’t have a sight line on the president, and the agents’ jobs become that much more difficult. Even if the gun-toting protestors whose rights McArdle is defending pose no harm to Obama, keeping a constant eye on them takes up resources–resources the Secret Service might need to thwart people who do mean to do harm to the president.Gherald, I certainly hope you’re not a rabid Second Amendment nut. Prove me wrong.
(via Sully stand-in)
Leave a Reply
Snack Food
Politico parodies itself (via): The Senate, once the chamber of deliberation and reason, is getting its own extreme makeover. Moderates such as Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Democrat Ben Nelson are bolting an institution that barely resembles the one they entered as idealistic deal makers. Ben Nelson? Idealistic dealmaker? These are words that should not be in the ... (1 comments)Despicable Quote of the Day - Icky Gay Sexytime Is A Threat To National Security
“Given the propensity for members of the homosexual community to engage in frequent and anonymous sexual encounters, the risk to national security of having a homosexual in a high-ranking position with access to secret information is obvious.” Bryan Fischer, Nutbag (0 comments)Newsweek Hearts America. Seriously. They Really F*cking Mean It.
I guess a cover featuring Uncle Sam hungrily masturbating to a painting of Jesus wearing an American flag was deemed to be insufficiently patriotic.
[Embiggen]
(1 comments)Paul Ryan Suddenly Realizes That Ayn Rand Was A Rabid Atheist
Republicans Cave Again: Student Loans Edition
Mississippi: A Shining Example Of Limited Government
Ah, the land of Mississippi – that shining bastion of God-fearing, limited-government conservatism. Well, unless you want to father illegitimate babies — then the government will throw you in jail. (5 comments)Over in the UK, Labour is now up big over the ruling Tories. Part of that is almost certainly a stalled, ailing economy, but what’s sort of interesting because a big part of their drop is due to implementing a cap on charitable deductions, which is essentially what Obama wanted to do here to cut ... (0 comments)Death Penalty Loses Another One
Connecticut ends the practice. I have to say, this is one of those social movements that is regularly winning big victories, but almost nobody seems to be paying attention. Which is fine by me–under the wire is probably the best way for this thing to go for now. (0 comments)Look, Mitt, I know you want to get women back on your side, but the notion that women have lost 92.3% of jobs in the recession may be technically correct in some manipulated and spun context, but it’s not correct, and it’s not even a good bullshit statistic. You might have been able to get ... (0 comments)What Do You Want Schwarzenegger To Write About In His Memoirs?
The Santorum Has Officially Been Mopped Up In The 2012 Race
I think this gets it right. Additionally, though, while I find Rick Santorum’s beliefs to be pretty risible, and his inability to accept that his ideas had some less-than-ideal results during the ’00s is a personal failing, but at the very least he seemed to possess some sense of personal honor and integrity. Not as good as ... (0 comments)I hadn’t used Instagram because I’m not so much a pictures sort of guy, but an article in the SF Chronicle article makes an interesting point that they were a much bigger threat to Zuckerburg’s empire than the other commonly named competitors. (0 comments)Fun Friday: Robocop Is Filmed In Front Of A Live Studio Audience
(THE GRAPEVINE
Zengerle doesn't refute anything, at least not in what you quote.
That a protester is carrying a weapon out in the open in the streets outside an event is extremely low on the Secret Service's list of things to worry about, and more a mater for the local cops assigned to crowd control. SS is there to worry about the threat of snipers and concealed weapons, not some dude making a political statement.
If an open carrying dude ever had a shot at the president, that would mean that the SS had already egregiously failed its job long before it happened.
The only grounds on which to criticize public protesters with guns are that it's:
A ) Ineffective as protest
B ) Needlessly puts people around them in danger
I'm in agreement with Megan on ( A ), I think. It draws attention, but I don't get how that attention is useful (particularly in a context like health-care reform).
But ( B ) is a really trifling and manufactured concern, as she explained.
I don't see anything rabid or nutty here, just some people unfamiliar and uncomfortable with firearms.
Addendum: Megan aptly responds here. She doesn't need any help from me, yo.
Addendum II: See also Will Wilkinson.
For one thing I have to agree with Megan. No laws were broken. The individual is licensed to carry. However the intimidation is not aimed at the president but at the people attending the town meeting and disagreeing with the individual. These are the people that armed individual wants to intimidate, so that they will not show up at any other meeting for fear that it will be to dangerous. Of course if another five or ten people from the other side show up, armed , and try to intimidate him, it will get interesting. Not only from the treat of violence, but from the right screaming that the Aryan Nation wantabe constitutional rights are being infringed on.
I've not seen anything to indicate intimidation and think it's ludicrous to make that leap.
Intimidating other protesters is one of the last things an armed protester wants to do, as it could easily start trouble.
Bearing arms is a right, but it's also a responsibility. Trying to make some kind of political statement by exercising that right is one thing. Deliberately causing trouble is quite another.
Showing up with an automatic assault rifle is a clear enough threat inand of itself.
As opposed to showing up with some other weapon? I'm not sure what your point is.
Anyhow, all the open carry protesters I've read about notified local authorities in advance, both to make sure police didn't overreact to the situation and to protect themselves from anti-gun hecklers.
This hardly seems like a threat.
Sigh, a assault weapon can fire one round, three rounds, or a burst of half a clip and are quite illegal because they are military grade weapons. What the ignorant one caries is a semi automatic weapon that can fire one round per trigger pull, not an assault rifle!
'Assault' is a bogus category anyway, especially for legal purposes like the 'assault weapons bans' that ban this grip but not that grip, or whatever.
Yeah this rifle could have been a semi-auto.
The point is that they are conveying a message that their side isarmed and dangerous and not afraid to rise up in violent bloody revoltif obama goes too far.
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, 1787
Grim stuff, huh? Of course, I don't think Obama is likely to go too far and descend into even as much lawlessness as, say, Bush and Cheney did.
But the Second Amendment is there in part so we have a last defense against a government that goes too far. If a gun protest serves to remind us of this, fine. Though as Megan argues, a health-care protest is a poor place to make the point.
One can acknowledge and support protesters' right to carry a weapon, as Megan and I do, and one can oppose particular health-care reforms, as Megan and I do, without seeing a meaningful connection between the two nor thinking it a good idea for protesters to create one.
But the nice thing about rights is that my opinion and your opinion and Megan's opinion doesn't actually bear on them. Some protesters decided to exercise their rights for something dumb, but at least they did it responsibly and with no apparent complication. Whoop dee doo.
You make it all sound very blase. We can agree yo disagree. I find itinciteful and dangerous
If I stand outside a meeting, armed with a pistol and a rifle, and a sigh calling for the blood of martyrs and tyrants, what am I but intimidating the people inside. I am not intimidating a president that is guarded buy security that is heavier armed than me. While you may know something about economics and book learning you obviously do not know how to intimidate people, and this armed individual certainly does.
The armed protesters did not intimidate nor call for the blood of anyone.
If they had, they would have been arrested.
Sorry about the typo, but did you not see the sign he was carrying. And why do you think that intimidation has to cross the line to illegal to be intimidating. All we really need is to have 15 or twenty legally armed people at these meeting, each from a different fringe camp supporting a different position for things to get really interesting. While the far right gets vocal about union and Acorn thugs being threatening armed people are just exorcising there rights. I really thing you have a very weak idea of what intimidation is.
Yes, because all threats and intimidation are obviously vocalized andnone are implicit.
If you are intimidated by the implicit, unvocalized thoughts and actions of someone who has notified police in advance of his plans to demonstrate armed and who is standing near a police escort, I suppose I don't have a cure for that.
Dr. GhD, This is one of those nutty examples I previously referred to about some of your mistaken chosen positions, where you seem to abandon the obvious and common sense, and instead argue for the sake of argument. If anyone intentionally walks into my home, birthday party, shopping mall, restaurant, post office, pool cabana, movie theater, or bus station with an obvious firearm, I would be duly and seriously concerned, as would my weapons trained military friends, police officers and hunters. It may questionably be this person's right to arrive at your home or meeting with their shotgun, but can you honestly continue such naive arguments that such action is or is intended to be benign? Ridiculously nutty.
What would make sense in those situations is the same as if you saw someone walking around with a huge knife or something.
You watch them for a few moments to see if it looks like they're some kind of threat or just going about an ordinary business (like say, protesting or walking by or waiting for the bus). If it seems ordinary, you do nothing, or perhaps inquire out of curiosity.
On the other hand, if it looked like maybe they intended to be a threat to someone, you keep watching and maybe call the police. (In particular, if they're trespassing onto private property unexpectedly, that's probably a reason to be concerned)
However stupid or silly it may have been, the gun protesters we've been discussing weren't "intimidating" anyone--except perhaps people opposed to their right to carry. What they did was clearly legal and should remain so.
The narrow point Megan was making remains: those who think merely showing up in a non-restricted area with a legal firearm is automatically dangerous need to get a clue.
For instance, if I were standing at a bus stop and knew the total stranger next to me had a legal weapon (either concealed or openly carried in a usual, safe way) yet seemed to be minding her own business, I'd feel safer, not less safe.
So I take objection to you calling this an argument for the sake of argument--for me, it's plainly true.
Here's a decent video (camera footage at 1:30) of the wrong police response to a routine open carry…
(like the guy in this incident, I'm a "porcupine" and will move to NH eventually :) )
"…perhaps inquire out of curiosity."?!?!? Do you live in an academic campus dorm? "Oh, say there, ol'Chap. Nice barrel on your lethal weapon. Might that be pewter? Goes well with the blue bus stop sign." Anybody who is packing is potentially dangerous, and you can't tell me you don't know this. This is primarily the point….protection. Yes, we have our rights, but we also have accompanying responsibilities with those rights. Abusing those responsibilities endangers the rights of those who are responsible. Defending those who act irresponsibly while hiding behind a simplistic interrpretation of rights is also irresponsible. Those people are intentionally inflammatory and you know this. Why not shift your discussion to something less nutty, like talk about gun/weapon rights AND responsibilities?
Anybody who is packing is potentially dangerous, and you can't tell me you don't know this.
More potentially dangerous, sure. Like someone driving a car is more potentially dangerous than a pedestrian. But a responsible person who gets into a car and starts driving isn't suddenly putting people's lives in unwarranted potential danger. It is not the case that everyone should always walk everywhere because driving has so much danger potential.
Statistically speaking, I'm more likely to kill someone by driving my car around town all day than by spending the same amount of time walking around with a weapon holstered. Yet you seem more bothered by the later. How's that?
Those people are intentionally inflammatory and you know this.
So, to recap, a peaceful protester showing up with a gun was inflammatory to people who don't like gun rights? Er, I believe that how protests are supposed to work. But your being inflamed or outraged by someone's action doesn't imply it was irresponsible.
Consider an analogy: I could dress up as a Nazi and walk around a public square chanting death to the Jews. This would be very stupid and very inflammatory! But irresponsible? Nah. And should it be illegal? Nah.
Obviously, I sympathize with gun ownership a heck of a lot more than neo-nazi speech. But in both cases a person is exercising a right--the top two on the bill of rights--and in both cases I shall defend their right.
talk about gun/weapon rights AND responsibilities?
Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand--I couldn't agree more about that! But the thing is, nobody we've been discussion here has "abused their responsibilities"! In fact, the protesters we're talking about notified police of their plans and acted responsibly. The guy in the video I linked above also acted responsibly.
If I see someone acting irresponsibly with a weapon--e.g. wildly waving it around in a public area with the safety off and a bullet in the chamber (to choose the obvious example)--I will vociferously join you in decrying the action.
But what we've been discussing here isn't at all like that, so your accusation of irresponsibility is unwarranted. I'm awfully sorry to have to say this, but you seem to be contributing to the discussion's nuttiness =P
Dr G! Dr G! So you're able to somehow telepathically or with x-ray vision assess if a weapon has it's safety off and if a bullet's in the chamber? Of course not. Yes, auto accidents cause many deaths, but showing up at Safeway in your car or with a weapon does and should engender a very different response. As it should at a Presidential meeting. And given the nutty wingnutty townhalls and Beck/Limbaugh flame fanners and crazyass hostile behaviors directed at our President, I'm simply hardpressed to buy your sincerity in your argument in these instances.
So you're able to somehow telepathically or with x-ray vision assess if a weapon has it's safety off and if a bullet's in the chamber?
No, it was a hypothetical.
showing up at Safeway in your car or with a weapon does and should engender a very different response.
It will sometimes, and should sometimes, but not necessarily.
As it should at a Presidential meeting.
No. As mentioned, if an open carry is a meaningful threat to the president, the Secret Service has already outrageously failed at their job.
I'm simply hardpressed to buy your sincerity in your argument in these instances
Well try harder, because wingnuttery and Beck/Limbaugh flame fanning and crazyass hostility bears not at all on my defense of the rights and responsibility involved here.
It does bear on whether I think these gun protests were a smart and productive idea (I don't).
On this, we agree…the gun protesters were dumb and unproductive; AND I believe very irresponsible…they give responsible gun owners a bad name, just as Sarah Palin's reasoning makes women and GOP look like irresponsible fools.
The clear implication that gherald and megan are minimizing is thatwhole washing the tree of liberty in blood sentiment cast alongsidemen with automatic rifles. Couldn't be clearer: submit to our demandsor we will support a violent insurrection against the duly electedgovernment of the united states.
I am about as intimidated by these gun rights protesters as I am by code pink protesters. Which is to say, not much.
If you feel differently, well, tough. It's a free country and people have the right to protest, the right to be armed, and the right to both at once. I will defend that right regardless of how stupid and counterproductive I think they're being.
For if we do not, that is how liberty is lost.
I elaborated on this with a response to PChun in a comment above
oh no, not the tiresome "X has a right to do Y" construct. point me to where anyone suggested that jackbooted thugs sent in by the government should arrest these idiots and place them in custody. if you can't, then we're not having a "X shouldn't have the right to do Y" vs. "X should have the right to do Y"; because we're not arguing about whether the government should come in and shut down their free speech. now that we've got that cleared out of the way, let's bear in mind that most anyone engaging in this discussion is interested in whether the actions in question were responsible and whether they were intended as intimidation.
Defending someone's rights can be done from abstract principles alone, but not everyone is convinced by appeals to individual liberty. So, we must also point to why their exercise of the right is not as irresponsible or dangerous as some people want to think.
Stupid things can be done in responsible and irresponsible ways. These protesters were responsible.
Protesters you disagree with can be intimidating, I suppose. But this does not imply that anyone was illegitimately threatened with violence—be it "unvocalized", "implicit", or whatever. That part's in your head, and like I said I don't have a cure for it.
well, the discussion seems to have become unproductive. so i'll close with:
and
and
Sure, I agree with all of that. One can see this as idiotic and counterproductive without getting into a tizzy about how dangerous and "implicitly/nonvocally" threatening it was.
I do not get intimidated by the gun carrier’s ether, but then I am not average either. I have had my run ins with the Aryan Nations types while they are armed. However I do have enough unusual friends that are also legal to carry that they disliked the odds and left my area. But that does not cover the average voter who shows up to voice their complaints. And they should not have to put up with the bull shit. I also feel that most of the gun control laws are a waist of time because they are the first charges to be plea bargained or dropped. They are usually used to intimidate the carriers. I would rather see legally armed individuals who must take training than the illegally armed types that only have TV training.
Nothing conveys dismissiveness better than using the word 'tizzy'
Oh you noticed that, did you? Sometimes things need to be dismissed >_>
I see the Dish is taking up your beat, though.
Anyway, how'm I doing in the 'rabid Second Amendment nut' department?
Lol
You're doing okay….Walnut rank, maybe Almond, but clearly not up to Pistachio as yet. :)
Considering how crazy the rabid second amendment crowd gets you do not even register. <grin>