Friday, August 21, 2009

Despoiling the Bill of Rights

I have friends who are unabashed liberals (as am I) who suffer from paralysis of analysis, in my estimation.

It is said that a liberal is someone who tries to see so many sides of an issue that he can’t even agree with himself.

Some of my friends feel that no one should be denied the right to engage in any "legal" course of action, even brandishing guns at presidential rallies. This overly-tolerant attitude is a definite disadvantage in a dogfight. Savage infighting, in my opinion, is what is going on in the current health care "debate."

Nut-jobs are showing up openly carrying guns a block away from where our president is speaking on the issue. Common sense is giving way to a mania for niceties when these nut cases are allowed to congregate in public with small arsenals within a block of the president.

Bullying prevails until it is called out for what it is–an attempt at intimidation--and stood up to.

They carry signs saying the tree of liberty should be watered. Anyone who reads books instead of endlessly blathering text messages on their I-phones would know that this is a "clever" reference to Thomas Jefferson’s famous saying that the tree of liberty should be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots. (If you’re unfamiliar with it, look up the quote on the Internet and gain some more shallow knowledge.) (Right: The scene in NH.)

Is that a threat to kill the president? Maybe. Is this intimidation? Absolutely. It is also menacing, and disturbing the peace in my opinion.

It is ridiculous to countenance such jackbooted behavior as a paean to the First Amendment. I don’t care what those crazy "open carry" laws allow. You don’t bring guns to a political debate.

I was a cop once. I know about rousting people. Cops maintain the public order for the benefit of the good and genteel people of the middle class by moving along the crazy, the agitated, the homeless. These idiots carrying weapons on street corners near the president should be rousted by the Secret Service.

We don’t need insecure little men walking around with civilian versions of assault rifles slung over their shoulders near where our president is . I wish I had been there to personally congratulate these armed losers for finally having something long and hard attached to their bodies. (Left: The scene in AZ.)

I commend the democratic congressman who coolly stared at a fruitcake holding up a placard depicting our president wearing a little Hitler mustache and asked, "On what planet do you spend most of your time?"

This Massachusetts representative properly described such behavior as "vile, contemptible nonsense."

Leave the guns, and the scurrilous untrue hate-mongering bombast about proposed health care mandates, at home.


jeanne said...

both you and barney frank get my vote! why this people aren't promptly hauled off to jail is BEYOND me.

Sunshine said...

Well said, Peter.
Wishing the voices of sanity would speak up...

Lesser is More said...

I'm sure I'm in the minority on this one, but without getting into the political debate side of things on this whole health care issue, I just have to wonder one question - why is their right to carry any different on a day where a notable person comes to their town, versus any other day? Did you object to these open carry laws before the President rolled up?

Whether you (not a resident of any of these states where this is happening) like it or not, what they are doing is perfectly legal. As a former person of the law, you should then know that it is well within their rights to carry.

Is it smart? Probably not. Whatever their intentions are (very likely intimidation as you stated), what they are doing is legal.

But the gripe I have with this whole thing is that people who do not live in areas where these laws are legal (like you, myself, and the media folks in mass hysteria over this behavior) are acting as if these people are operating under THEIR laws. But that is not the case.

Like I said, I believe these people are idiots for doing what they are doing, but they are acting within the rights of THEIR cities/states.

peter said...

Should the Northern states, then, have let the Southern states continue on with their very legal peculiar institution then?