Why does this make me feel like freedom is under seige?
News item: Anti-Obama protesters in New Hampshire and Arizona took to the street with firearms visible. Two brandished assault rifles. No laws were broken because state laws allow people to walk around in public with weapons.
Have New Hampshire and Arizonan lawmakers lost their collective minds!? Boy, do I feel secure knowing that some idiot with the IQ of a fern was able to get a license to carry a gun on the streets of Concord and Phoenix. I’m pretty sure these folks won’t protect America from terrorists and criminals; they’d have to be able to spell those words first.
A person who would show up at a presidential rally with a gun has a personal death wish. What will happen next is as predictable as a sunrise. The irresponsible commentators at Fox News—like former drug addict Rush Limbaugh—and leaders of the NRA (Nazi Rifle Association) will hail these people as heroes of freedom. Copycat protesters will appear at future Obama appearances and one of them—no doubt inflamed by Fox or the NRA—will make a menacing gesture with his weapon. The Secret Service will drop him like a bad date and we’ll have another preventable gun casualty to add to growing list. Of course, the deceased’s estate will sue the government and lose. (No one has ever won a wrongful death suit against the Secret Service). And, of course, Fox News, the NRA, and Internet conspiracy nuts will accuse Obama of having personally ordered the man’s murder. (One of the latter will probably reveal that the dead man had Obama’s “real” Kenyan birth certificate.”)
Is it an assault on the second amendment to say that it’s a bad idea to carry guns on the street? Is it unreasonable to think that those without the capacity for reason ought not to be allowed to have assault rifles? Can’t we at least agree that nobody’s precious freedoms would be jeopardized if we made it a federal law to disallow guns at a presidential rally? Before you say “no,” consider a few names: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy. (Americans have gunned down a whopping 9% of their presidents!)
Several protesters spoke of “exercising their freedoms.” Horse manure!! Their actions were little more than variants of a Ku Klux Klan cross burning. Obama was in town to speak about health-care reform, not the second amendment. What purpose did carrying a gun have other than to signal racist discontent with being governed by a black man? What message was sent other than an assassination threat?
Spare me the freedom malarkey. Like too many Americans, the protesters conflated freedom and liberty. Freedom, in political terms, is a synonym for civil liberty, not for absolute liberty. It stems from the type of liberty—freedom from foreign or arbitrary rule—secured during the American Revolution. Anti-government protesters insisting on their “rights” don’t get it that without the government they have no rights. Government is (or should be) the guarantor of freedom, not its enemy. But freedom is not the kind of “liberty” marked by having no external restraints. Unless government imposes limitations on freedom it cannot guarantee any rights. The anarchist freedom sought by those who think they can do as they wish is the type of liberty whose noun form is “libertine,” a person who is morally profligate and possesses weak internal controls.
Let us make no mistake, those parading around with assault rifles were not advocates of freedom; they were libertines. They are also walking advertisements for those who argue for the second amendment’s repeal. If that ever happens, don’t blame Obama; cast the accusing finger at those whose recklessness made a mockery of freedom.--LV
News item: Anti-Obama protesters in New Hampshire and Arizona took to the street with firearms visible. Two brandished assault rifles. No laws were broken because state laws allow people to walk around in public with weapons.
Have New Hampshire and Arizonan lawmakers lost their collective minds!? Boy, do I feel secure knowing that some idiot with the IQ of a fern was able to get a license to carry a gun on the streets of Concord and Phoenix. I’m pretty sure these folks won’t protect America from terrorists and criminals; they’d have to be able to spell those words first.
A person who would show up at a presidential rally with a gun has a personal death wish. What will happen next is as predictable as a sunrise. The irresponsible commentators at Fox News—like former drug addict Rush Limbaugh—and leaders of the NRA (Nazi Rifle Association) will hail these people as heroes of freedom. Copycat protesters will appear at future Obama appearances and one of them—no doubt inflamed by Fox or the NRA—will make a menacing gesture with his weapon. The Secret Service will drop him like a bad date and we’ll have another preventable gun casualty to add to growing list. Of course, the deceased’s estate will sue the government and lose. (No one has ever won a wrongful death suit against the Secret Service). And, of course, Fox News, the NRA, and Internet conspiracy nuts will accuse Obama of having personally ordered the man’s murder. (One of the latter will probably reveal that the dead man had Obama’s “real” Kenyan birth certificate.”)
Is it an assault on the second amendment to say that it’s a bad idea to carry guns on the street? Is it unreasonable to think that those without the capacity for reason ought not to be allowed to have assault rifles? Can’t we at least agree that nobody’s precious freedoms would be jeopardized if we made it a federal law to disallow guns at a presidential rally? Before you say “no,” consider a few names: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy. (Americans have gunned down a whopping 9% of their presidents!)
Several protesters spoke of “exercising their freedoms.” Horse manure!! Their actions were little more than variants of a Ku Klux Klan cross burning. Obama was in town to speak about health-care reform, not the second amendment. What purpose did carrying a gun have other than to signal racist discontent with being governed by a black man? What message was sent other than an assassination threat?
Spare me the freedom malarkey. Like too many Americans, the protesters conflated freedom and liberty. Freedom, in political terms, is a synonym for civil liberty, not for absolute liberty. It stems from the type of liberty—freedom from foreign or arbitrary rule—secured during the American Revolution. Anti-government protesters insisting on their “rights” don’t get it that without the government they have no rights. Government is (or should be) the guarantor of freedom, not its enemy. But freedom is not the kind of “liberty” marked by having no external restraints. Unless government imposes limitations on freedom it cannot guarantee any rights. The anarchist freedom sought by those who think they can do as they wish is the type of liberty whose noun form is “libertine,” a person who is morally profligate and possesses weak internal controls.
Let us make no mistake, those parading around with assault rifles were not advocates of freedom; they were libertines. They are also walking advertisements for those who argue for the second amendment’s repeal. If that ever happens, don’t blame Obama; cast the accusing finger at those whose recklessness made a mockery of freedom.--LV
No comments:
Post a Comment