The opinion of the Los Angeles Times is that Americans are volatile and dangerous. As an American, my opinion is that anti-liberty-nuts are defamatory and ignorant, abusing their first amendment rights.
The Friday, August 21, 2009 edition of the Los Angeles Times has the editorial Gunning for trouble. The mistaken idea (ignorance) is that the subject of the armed citizen is even open to debate. Newspapers depend entirely on an amendment to the constitution which is far from absolute, and apply (abuse) their right to attack another’s right which is absolute. The First Amendment has reasonable restrictions – you may not lie under oath and call it freedom of speech. You may not threaten people, falsely advertise, commit mail fraud, conspire to commit a felony, or falsely advertise, defame others, or even deal in bad faith and then hide behind the First Amendment to the Constitution. I can remember media screaming bloody murder when their 1A rights were judged, and it’s not even absolute!
But the Second Amendment is absolute, because it is the lethal force which backs our authority as the sovereign in this country. In any nation, the sovereign has the monopoly on lethal force, and here, it is us, not the government. Leftist writers do not forget this, they work to undermine this.
Gunning for trouble attacks the citizens of Arizona who showed up to a town hall meeting armed. I have been to Arizona, I have been legally armed, both open carry and concealed carry. I have had dinner, snacks, conversations and lectures with others who have open-carried their revolvers and semi-automatics in plain view on their hip. Nobody looked twice, including the police. In Arizona, you can carry a loaded gun. The majority of states has similar laws affirming citizen rights this way. How does a majority of states affirming the armed citizen bug the Administration so? This is a clue of a sort.
In describing how town hall attendees showed up armed in a right-to-carry state (Arizona), Gunning for trouble becomes, itself, belligerent. The editorial attacks a safeguard of the United States.
Gunning for trouble remarks, "There is a chilling effect on public debate, to say the least, when one side is carrying weapons of mass murder." Not in Arizona, there isn’t. And not in new Hampshire, either. I bet it wouldn’t chill debate in Alaska, Vermont, Montana, Nevada, and several other states where the armed citizen is as common as anything else. Stating that it would is to confess publicly that the paper is out of touch. Most of the times guns are used as ‘weapons of mass murder; is in locales where the citizenry has been disarmed. Places such as Mumbai come to mind. Not Arizona or New Hampshire.. Emphasis on disarmed as in Victim Disarmament Zones and Gun Control.
Furthermore, "Police monitoring the situation reported that no threats, physical or verbal, were made by or toward the armed demonstrators." And why not? It was Arizonans — armed and not armed – who were there, each fully aware that being armed was not a distraction the Times makes it out to be. Who’s making trouble here? Who’s out of touch here, Arizonans or the Times and the Administration?
I think the Left is scared and showing more signs of it with every speech and editorial. The left is not scared of armed citizens, they are afraid that the concept that they are not needed will spread. The armed citizen is a symbol of Independence, reasonableness, respect for law and the reasonable expectation of it in others, and that includes the critical analysis of how much the government is needed or not needed for so many things. Armed citizens are not anti-government, they are simply for putting government in its proper perspective and function, and utilizing, invoking and abiding by governance we determine, not servants. We get the first and last say so, not the government, and that is what this is really all about.
Gun owners -- on the increase now approaching some 90 million in the U.S. --- are not anti-government; the abusers of authority are anti-government by working outside of due process, while the armed citizen utilizes and even summons due process. The idea that officials are not as needed as they would like to be is frightening to them, and it is at the root of this entire debacle.
Gunning for trouble goes on to say that an armed citizen ‘protester’ who was ‘skulking’ outside President Obama’s New Hampshire town hall meeting was only exercising his second amendment rights while Obama was exercising his first amendment right is just a little abusively critical. The fact is that people in Arizona – and citizens around this country including New Hampshire – do not need permission to show up armed, and certainly do not need to explain anything to officials when it comes to why they exercise their rights. The Constitution doesn’t limit our rights, it limits government. The Times – and the Administration – are gearing up for Americans to do both: soon having to explain their case to bureaucrats and soon having to get permission.
No thanks. It’s time to stop describing righteous indignation, objection and protest as volatile. It’s time to respect our involvement now as the sovereign over the servants. It’s time to expect our supervision of government and to drop government’s supervision of us.
Finally, Gunning for trouble adds this backpedaling barb: "If Obama were discussing gun control at these events, this [being armed] might actually make some sense, but what's the relationship between guns and Healthcare Reform?" To quote President Reagan, "Well, now there you go again." As if there weren’t one. See my previous series on just what that relationship is.
In the final analysis, The Electorate says what that relationship is, expressing its apprehension and suspicions, and when we suspect and mistrust officials as we do now, then the answer is No. If the electorate even suspects skullduggery in Health Care Reform – such as gun forfeitures for some health reason, or invasions of privacy of even non-gun owners which databases officials should never keep to begin with – then the matter is closed until Americans know for a fact that officials cannot do what they promised they would not do. Right now, officials have blown it, the electorate suspects that assurances are worthless, and that officials will say anything and cannot be trusted.
After all, why are they pushing so hard? So very, very hard?
________________________________
Longenecker’s hardcover book Safe Streets In The Nationwide Concealed Carry Of Handguns is now available in e-book at NationwideConcealedCarry.com
Comments
I am so much more afraid of Obama's shadow government death policies than I am of someone carrying a gun.
FACT: William Kostric was assaulted by a UNION thug, who kicked him in the groin. He did nothing to fight back, despite having a gun strapped to his leg. The reason he walked away was he saw the gun. You won't hear that on that NUT Rachel Maddow's show.
FACT: The adorable man in Arizona was a well-spoken, BLACK patriot who was also legally carrying.
This is not about racism, or violence but the fake media will keep up with this drumbeat.. Beware those who are out to fool you.
Too many even among gunnies back away from the clear, stark meaning of the Second Amendment. It has a very simple function - to convince anybody with tyrannical inclination that fulfilling their fantasies just might be detrimental to their health. And to maintain the capacity to execute that deterrent should the situation ever require it.
To mangle a phrase we often have thrown in our face when we object to governmental invasions of privacy; "If you have no tyranny to hide, you have nothing to worry about". That thought makes it rather interesting how many of the media types are in a complete tizzy, doesn't it? Not that the prevalence of hoplophobes among the mediacrats is news fit to print in even the New York Times...
William Kostric was NOT kicked. He was present when the union(?) guy attempted to kick another activist, Renicks(sp?), in the groin (who successfully dodged the kick). Union guy did back off on spotting the gun.
You can hear William and Renicks discuss what happened in their own words on Free Talk Live here:
media.libsyn.com/media/ftl/FTL2009-08-12.mp3
Second half of the confrontation on video here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUxjahek0f8
With respect to the very obvious fact that Left and the Tyrant Wannabees are afraid of me, I frequently feel it's necessary to warn them: I feel threatened by those who are afraid of me because the rational thing for them to do is to take pre-emptive defensive measures. Because I realize that, I caution them to beware of me. My rational instincts are no different and I'm very determined. I might act first, and they are down the tubes.
If you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, why can someone yell "no guns" in a editorial and cause freedom loving Americans to become "violent and dangerous." Someone needs to limit the speech of anti gunners before they cause a riot...send them to jail!
Easy - because most of the prosecutors who decide which cases to file and the judges who hear them are just as badly infected with advanced hoplophobia.
One most certainly can yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and if there is a fire, it is his damn duty.
It is only proscribed if the yelling is false and places others at risk they would not otherwise suffer. A legitimate yelling of "Fire" is a duty incumbent on each of us to lessen the greater risk of others burning to death.
In neither case, however, are prior restraints placed on the ability to yell "Fire" or "Donuts" for that matter. We are not required to wear gags, nor have our vocal cords anesthetized, or lips sewn shut to prevent us from misusing that voice while in the theater. Which if we were to treat this lame-ass example the same way we do guns we would do all those things before anyone left his house. One does not have to go to the theater to cause harm with unwarranted words. Where are all those giants of logic and law who cannot see this?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!