Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 20, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

First Solar Bread Oven Takes a Bow
Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Love and Consequences

Love and Consequences

By Margaret B. Jones
$16.47

more items

 
Report

The Politics of the Jackboot

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 20, 2009

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Editor’s note: We are re-featuring this E.J. Dionne column from August of 2009 in light of this weekend’s deadly shooting in Arizona. Click here to read Dionne’s reaction to the shooting.

Try a thought experiment: What would conservatives have said if a group of loud, scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush? 

How would our friends on the right have reacted to someone at a Reagan or a Bush speech carrying a sign that read: “It’s time to water the tree of liberty”? That would be a reference to Thomas Jefferson’s declaration that the tree “must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Pardon me, but I don’t think conservatives would have spoken out in defense of the right of every American Marxist to bear arms or to shed the blood of tyrants.

In fact, the Bush folks didn’t like any dissent at all. Recall the 2004 incident in which a distraught mother whose son was killed in Iraq was arrested for protesting at a rally in New Jersey for first lady Laura Bush. The detained woman wasn’t even armed. Maybe if she had been carrying, the gun lobby would have defended her.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The Obama White House purports to be open to the idea of guns outside the president’s appearances. “There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally,” Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said Tuesday. “Those laws don’t change when the president comes to your state or locality.”

Gibbs made you think of the old line about the liberal who is so open-minded he can’t even take his own side in an argument.

What needs to be addressed is not the legal question but the message that the gun-toters are sending.

This is not about the politics of populism. It’s about the politics of the jackboot. It’s not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It’s about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.

There is a philosophical issue here that gets buried under the fear that so many politicians and media-types have of seeming to be out of touch with the so-called American heartland.

The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument. Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them.

On the contrary, violence and the threat of violence have always been used by those who wanted to bypass democratic procedures and the rule of law. Lynching was the act of those who refused to let the legal system do its work. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments.

Yes, I have raised the racial issue, and it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president’s public events only now, when the president is black. Race is not the only thing at stake here, and I have no knowledge of the personal motivations of those carrying the weapons. But our country has a tortured history on these questions, and we need to be honest about it. Those with the guns should know what memories they are stirring.

And will someone please tell the armed demonstrators how foolish and lawless they make our country look in the eyes of so much of the world? Are we not the country that urges other nations to see the merits of the ballot over the bullet?

All this is taking place as the country debates the president’s health care proposal. There is much that is disturbing in that discussion. Shouting down speakers is never a good thing, and many lies are being told about the contents of the health care bills. The lies should be confronted, but freedom involves a lot of commotion and an open contest of ideas, even when some of the parties say things that aren’t true and act in less than civil ways.

Yet if we can’t draw the line at the threat of violence, democracy begins to disintegrate. Power, not reason, becomes the stuff of political life. Will some group of responsible conservatives, preferably life members of the NRA, have the decency to urge their followers to leave their guns at home when they go out to protest the president? Is that too much to ask?

E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.

© 2009, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By gerard, January 11, 2011 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment

MISTAKE:
“Yet if we can’t draw the line at the threat of violence, democracy begins to disintegrate.”
  Democracy begins to disintegrate long before the “threat of violence.”  Democracy begins to disintegrate when the majority of citizens refuse to care about the moral, physical and ethical health of everybody living in that democracy. That means caring not only for themselves, but also for everybody else, regardless of creed, class or color.
  Democracy begins to disintegrate when the majority of citizens are under-educated, not able to make reasoned judgments and take responsibility for reasonable action; when governments begin to ignore large segments of their constituents as “second-class” or cease to pay attention to public opinion; when media begin to lie and twist and spin, and when government puts on a cloak of righteousness and promotes wars, secrecy, manipulation, playing off opposition against opposition, and punishing difference of opinion or disallowing protests, petitions, letters, and complaints. Or when government sides with one segment or class over another. 
  In other words the dissolution of democracy has many causes, most of them having been ignored by both government and “the people” for decades.
  In this country it is the responsibility of government to deal openly and justly, and it is the responsibility of the people to deal with their government openly and justly, locally, state-wide and nationally. Period.

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, January 11, 2011 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

FilthyCherry
So what you’re saying is, our nation was formed and defended because of an armed militia citizenry? Sorry, but that doesn’t match the historical record. Starting with George Washington and the Continental Army, the push has been toward a professional, permanent military. Some people describe the state-by-state National Guard as a “militia.” However, many on the Right appear to understand the concept of “citizen militias” as groups of men with guns who share an ideological point of view, usually some variety of hard right-wing. These groups have never been directly involved in the defense of our nation though some historically have been involved in domestic terrorism and intimidation, notably in the South and West.

Report this
FilthyCherry's avatar

By FilthyCherry, January 9, 2011 at 10:07 pm Link to this comment

“The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument.”

Ummmm, the war of independance was fought and won because the citizenry was well armed and capable with those arms.  Then every person was listed in the militia of every state up until at least WWII.

Report this

By Bethel, August 24, 2009 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

Poco, and counterfeit conservatives, tell your story about deadbeats to the billion dollar bonus babies at the nations’s banks that put trilions of your tax dollars at risk. Tell your story too to the Republicans who have back-door taxed you for 40 years, by increasing the U.S. national debt from $1 trillion dollars under Ronald Reagan to $12 trillion dollars now, promising no new taxes while spending on your free lunch.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, August 23, 2009 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

One of my points exactly Anarssisa

What we need to do is limit what our gov’t does and put a collar on it and say heel! Take away the big money ($20,000 should do)and the staffs and the perks of the Congress. (They can live in split room dorms) and ride electric trams to an from. That way if they want to produce bills that are over 10 pages long and have to have corporate legal interpretations they will have to hire and pay for them out of pocket and be able to know that bill before they get near the chance to pass it. I would also like to see them type the bills themselves too. Unlike today where the average congressor is ignorant of what they pass and may have done next to nothing in actual work on it. A dangerous way to “run” gov’t don’t you think?

The problem is getting to that point and I don’t see an easy or even possible road to that at this time.

What I see is a gov’t that fritters away time and effort working on five separate health bills of unknown content thousands of pages long and of dubious merit for us, we the people.

One of the symptoms of a dying republic and growth of authoritarianism (jackboot) is the lack of function among the electorate which hurts and weakens the former and strengthens the latter. Indeed Obama seems to me to have wanted this mess to tie up the actual aid to the millions uninsured and poorly insured which are well over 100 million. Just simply leaving Medicare open ended would have done that without more than a page. Why didn’t he?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, August 22, 2009 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

sciencehighway:
‘It took our civilization many, many years of messy experimentation to conclude that a free society requires the services of a well-trained and armed police force to protect the rest of us - mostly from those who choose to arm themselves. Heck, it took me more than a couple of decades to figure that one out myself.’

I don’t know where this experimentation is; when I read history, I see that state organizations, mostly governments and paramilitary forces, killed somewhere between 100 and 200 million people in the 20th century, besides being involved in countless other instances of terror, torture, mayhem, theft, enslavement, and so forth.  Maybe you could point out some of the experiments which went the other way?  The conclusion one has to draw from your stated principles—that once people are employed as cops or other government agents, they are or become superior to ordinary people—is something I certainly haven’t observed in daily life or in what I read and hear.  Quite the reverse, in fact.

Report this
sciencehighway's avatar

By sciencehighway, August 22, 2009 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

It took our civilization many, many years of messy experimentation to conclude that a free society requires the services of a well-trained and armed police force to protect the rest of us - mostly from those who choose to arm themselves. Heck, it took me more than a couple of decades to figure that one out myself.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, August 22, 2009 at 4:53 pm Link to this comment

sciencehighway:
’... On the other hand guns, while useful in law enforcement, war, hunting, sport and many other pursuits, are not and have never been part of civilized discourse. Their purpose in this situation can only be to intimidate or worse. There is no excuse for bringing a firearm to such a discussion….’

In that case, why do the police bring them?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, August 22, 2009 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment

Poco:

‘Seems only the lefties are concerned about the wearing of guns. Suppose that says something about their argument? Seems to me, the only people that get edgy when other people are armed are the ones that want something that doesn’t belong to them. ...’

Making things up is not the way to form a rational argument.

Report this
sciencehighway's avatar

By sciencehighway, August 22, 2009 at 3:31 pm Link to this comment

The point of representational democracy is that we, the people, elect those candidates or parties whose stated platforms come closest to our point of view. Their job is to research the issues (one of the reasons we give them offices and staffs) and represent us in the lawmaking process. This is a full-time responsibility which, for the most part, we non-governmental types have neither the time nor acuity for, even were we able to get a true sense of the issues given the background noise coming from both side’s ‘official’ media channels. Our representatives are not meant to be puppets, nor we their puppetmasters; Opportunities to regret our collective choices and throw the buggers are built into the system. We call them elections.

The current debate concerns a broken and doomed health care system that isn’t properly serving most of the populace, is fully capable of bankrupting even those with insurance, and will collapse of its own weight within decades, as more and more baby boomers reach retirement/Medicare age. Few on either side who have studied the issues rationally deny this must be repaired, nor that the time to do so is now. Those holding the ‘lazy bums don’t deserve any help from me’ position favored by commentator Poco are certainly a crucial part of this debate, and are being heard. This is as it should be. 

On the other hand guns, while useful in law enforcement, war, hunting, sport and many other pursuits, are not and have never been part of civilized discourse. Their purpose in this situation can only be to intimidate or worse. There is no excuse for bringing a firearm to such a discussion; There is far less excuse for not arresting anyone doing so in proximity to the President. What are the Secret Service thinking?

Even more alarming (and so far uncommented upon) is the image of the fellow showing up at an Obama health care rally with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder like some modern day Travis Bickle. No question that the assault rifle makes a statement, but a closer examination reveals something far subtler: Next to his holstered pistol one can see at least one fully-loaded ammo clip for the AR-15 jutting out of his pocket. What on earth was this lunatic preparing for?

Report this

By Poco, August 22, 2009 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

Seems only the lefties are concerned about the wearing of guns. Suppose that says something about their argument? Seems to me, the only people that get edgy when other people are armed are the ones that want something that doesn’t belong to them.

The libs, starting with Lyndon Johnson (the great society?), have had access to my paycheck for quite some time, confiscating part of my labor to fund ‘citizens’ who, because of certain decisions they have made, do not work, are not capable of holding a job or ever care to work. (Under the libs certain classes of people were encouraged, using my wallet, to have as many children as possible all the while excluding the father from the raising of those children.) While I call that theft they prefer to refer to it as my social responsibility. Whatever the case, they back up this confiscation by the threat of force.

It now seems the lefties also want to control my access to health care. They want even more of what I and my children produce to fund this latest health care scheme and control even more of our lives. At a time like this, wearing a gun doesn’t seem all that irrational to me.

Additionally, my experience tells me that, even more than do conservatives, the lefties want to control debate and take away a citizens right to speak if they do not agree with the message (witness what happens on college campuses when a conservative is invited to express his or her opinion and the assaults with pies and fists). As the author of this article states, “Shouting down speakers is never a good thing”, and I agree with that, but that has to be the tenet of both sides.

Maybe the wearing of guns is a healthy thing in that repugnant behavior is deterred. As the author says, “It’s about the politics of the jackboot. It’s not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It’s about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.”

I did not see anyone carrying a gun at any of the rallies using it to try to control the tone or tenor of the debate he or she attended. I also did not see others being assaulted because their opinion differs from that of the liberals as often happens when a conservative tries to speak as above.

The author goes on to state “The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument.” I would disagree with that to a point.

This nation was born out of violence and reared on it. We did not have a Revolutionary ‘Debate’ to establish our nation and we did not have a ‘Civil Debate’ to determine what is and isn’t states rights and to end slavery. Those were wars fought by men with, dare I say it, guns, for our freedom to do as we wish as a nation. At this time we wish our citizens to be armed to discourage other little governmental adventures. The fact that armed citizens have the ability and right to arrive at sites where our president happens to be is our choice.

I believe that, given our history and the history of other nations, only fools trust in the wisdom and faithfulness of politicians and government to protect our rights. You can debate to your hearts content but if the government makes a choice and has the force to back it up your debate is lost in the wind. Wise men in government, of which there seems to be few, know this fact and only nibble at your rights and slowly erode your earnings for fear of those with the arms. That is a good thing.

And then the author brings up the race issue, Just another straw man. Leave it to liberals to be concerned with race. After all, they are the ones that gave us modern slavery in the form of welfare.

As I said in the beginning, those that want what is not theirs were the only ones raising a fuss.

Report this

By poco424, August 22, 2009 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Seems only the lefties are concerned about the wearing of guns. Suppose that says something about their argument? Seems to me, the only people that get edgy when other people are armed are the ones that want something that doesn’t belong to them.

The libs, starting with Lyndon Johnson (the great society?), have had access to my paycheck for quite some time, confiscating part of my labor to fund ‘citizens’ who, because of certain decisions they have made, do not work, are not capable of holding a job or ever care to work. (Under the libs certain classes of people were encouraged, using my wallet, to have as many children as possible all the while excluding the father from the raising of those children.) While I call that theft they prefer to refer to it as my social responsibility. Whatever the case, they back up this confiscation by the threat of force.

It now seems the lefties also want to control my access to health care. They want even more of what I and my children produce to fund this latest health care scheme and control even more of our lives. At a time like this, wearing a gun doesn’t seem all that irrational to me.

Additionally, my experience tells me that, even more than do conservatives, the lefties want to control debate and take away a citizens right to speak if they do not agree with the message (witness what happens on college campuses when a conservative is invited to express his or her opinion and the assaults with pies and fists). As the author of this article states, “Shouting down speakers is never a good thing”, and I agree with that, but that has to be the tenet of both sides.

I did not see anyone carrying a gun at any of the rallies using it to try to control the tone or tenor of the debate he or she attended. I also did not see others being assaulted because their opinion differs from that of the liberals as often happens when a conservative tries to speak as above.

Maybe the wearing of guns is a healthy thing in that repugnant behavior is deterred. As the author says, “It’s about the politics of the jackboot. It’s not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It’s about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.”

The author goes on to state “The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument.” I would disagree with that to a point.

This nation was born out of violence and reared on it. We did not have a Revolutionary ‘Debate’ to establish our nation and we did not have a ‘Civil Debate’ to determine what is and isn’t states rights and to end slavery. Those were wars fought by men with, dare I say it, guns, for our freedom to do as we wish as a nation. At this time we wish our citizens to be armed to discourage other little governmental adventures. The fact that armed citizens have the ability and right to arrive at sites where our president happens to be is our choice.

I believe that, given our history and the history of other nations, only fools trust in the wisdom and faithfulness of politicians and government to protect our rights. You can debate to your hearts content but if the government makes a choice and has the force to back it up your debate is lost in the wind. Wise men in government, of which there seems to be few, know this fact and only nibble at your rights and slowly erode your earnings for fear of those with the arms. That is a good thing.

And then the author brings up the race issue. Just another straw man. Leave it to liberals to be concerned with race. After all, they are the ones that gave us modern slavery in the form of welfare.

As I said in the beginning, those that want what is not theirs were the only ones raising a fuss.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, August 22, 2009 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

Chaotic Good—it used to be asserted that the NRA wouldn’t like it if Black people went around bearing arms.  Then it turned out there were Black chapters of the NRA.  There may well be Arab chapters. End of that gibe.

Report this

By ChaoticGood, August 21, 2009 at 10:43 pm Link to this comment

Just a thought experiment.  Suppose a group of Arab Americans dressed in traditional robes came armed with assault rifles, what do you think the NRA would say about that?
LOL

A double standard might appear, who knows….

Report this

By Jim Yell, August 21, 2009 at 8:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In theory gun carrying is a right, but in practice the volitale nature of humanity makes it unwise. Unless you are involved in target shooting at an appropriate location, or you are legally hunting the guns should be left at home in a gun safe.

Taking guns to a place where arguments, sometimes passionate are likely to occure is inviting misfortune for everyone.

We have in the old days had to allow this as life held wild animals and gangsters all around, but as we have had effective law enforcement and less room to take pot shots without hitting passers by we have had laws that prescribe the proper place for, yes Guns, which includes rifles and machine"guns” and such. The quaint slang of military blockheads not withstanding.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, August 21, 2009 at 7:32 am Link to this comment

I bring my gun with me everywhere I go and it is going to stay that way. In the Marines we learned the difference between our rifle and our gun, it may be helpful if some who are going to write about guns, try to keep on topic.

Way back then, the Marines, had a ditty which went something like this.  “This is my rifle this is my gun, one is for shooting and the other is for fun.” Wonder if they still say this in the Marines?

If someone shows up to a rally with his gun, lets hope he is wearing trousers.

Report this
peterjkraus's avatar

By peterjkraus, August 21, 2009 at 6:05 am Link to this comment

Thanks, EJ. A thug is a thug, and armed thugs anywhere are a direct and willful threat to their surroundings

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, August 20, 2009 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt—I don’t see why leftists bringing guns will lead to people shooting one another, since we already have cops, Secret Service people, open-carry gun nutters, and probably a lot of other people bringing stuff without gunplay (usually).  I think leftists are likely to be even more intelligent and self-controlled than these other type, so they should be able to come to events armed without causing any problems.

If non-leftists feel uncomfortable with this, then maybe everyone could agree to leave their guns home, including the cops.  Or would that just be too crazy?

Report this

By mike112769, August 20, 2009 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment

E.J. Dionne: That was just pathetic, comparing gun owners to nazis. Get over yourself.

Report this

By mike112769, August 20, 2009 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment

Racist? One of the guys carrying an AR-15 was a black man. Is he racist too? I don’t personally endorse carrying to one of these rallies, but it’s not illegal. If you don’t like it, stop sniveling and try to get your local ordinances changed. Good luck bringing more money to the fight than the NRA (whom I firmly support). The second amendment is a very good thing. Let’s hope we never have to find out why.

Report this

By rabidlyindependent, August 20, 2009 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

On my way to the protest in D.C. in September, 2005, I watched a man miss his flight out of Jax, Fla. because he was wearing an “impeach Bush” tee shirt.

The wing-nutters should not assume that liberals do not have guns. This one does. I would never consider taking it anywhere near a political rally, let alone a presidential speech.

People who do are aiming to intimidate and it looks like it’s working. Too bad our elected officials are not as brave as the young men and women they send to defend America, inc.

Prediction: The Great American experiment is about to blow up in our faces and it will be ignorance and chosen stupidity that causes it, whether bullets start flying or not.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, August 20, 2009 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t say not to just that it will lead to that.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, August 20, 2009 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

Night-Gaunt:
‘Once Leftists or anyone else start bringing fire arms to rallies we will eventually have a mini-civil war.’

Everyone else can bring them; why not leftists?

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, August 20, 2009 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment

Once Leftists or anyone else start bringing fire arms to rallies we will eventually have a mini-civil war. With real bullets flying. Not healthy for a union of diverse people.

Then the jackboots will come trooping out to cut everyone down to bloody size and order will be restored to the ruling class.

Report this

By Reality, August 20, 2009 at 11:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If the right wing engages in violence, they should get a dose of their own medicine “law and order.” Without “law and order” all American communities will be at grave risk.The true American citizenry have been forewarned and will take the necessary measures for security in the streets and governing bodies.Sanitation is appropriate.

In comparison to all the topics and vocations under the aegis of the arts and sciences, gun mania is barbaric and suicidal.Self defense and hunting is one thing, worshiping this vile totem, this fetish, instead of improving one’s mind and and doing good works, is another.

Live by the gun, die by the gun.

Report this

By Rodger Lemonde, August 20, 2009 at 8:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Guns are not about equality, they are about superiority.
Guns are not about rational debate.
Guns are not appropriate to public gathering.
Guns are not a guarantee of your safety.
Guns are not a guarantee of freedom.
Guns are mindless hardware that can create untold devastation.
Please don’t mix them with your faulty software.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, August 20, 2009 at 8:03 am Link to this comment

The jackboot trope works only if one party, caste or side is forbidden to carry weapons.  But there is nothing to stop leftists, liberals, or anyone else from carrying them if they feel intimidated by weapons-bearing rightists. 

Leftists have sported guns in public before.  In a famous incident, Black Panther Party members carried weapons into the visitors’ gallery of the California legislature in Sacramento.  At the time, it was legal to do so, and the BPP was calling itself “socialist” so I guess they were leftists of a sort in spite of the nationalism.

As I said elsewhere, I think carrying guns to an ordinary public meeting makes the carriers look like jerks and assists their opposition.  How many incidents of this sort have there been, anyway?  It is sort of hard to believe that there are enough dumb people to do this on a large scale.

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, August 20, 2009 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

Just ask Cindy Sheehan what it’s like wearing an anti-war T-Shirt at the Capitol.  No gun was necessary for her to draw the wrath of W supporters.  She was labeled as anything but human by Fox News over the years. 
  And I don’t recall Sheehan calling any representative a Nazi.

Report this

By blacklifer-nra, August 20, 2009 at 7:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

•  Armed, scruffy Leftists: maybe they’re not all bad.
•  Friend of Right w Bush, Reagan reaction: depends on whether or not the
A-hole was wearing an American flag-and how big it is.
•  American Marxists: get real.
•  Bush on dissent: nobody likes that.
•  White house open to keeping firearm laws intact upon visits: wise, no-
brainer.
•  Gibb so liberal he can’t take his own side: nice one, funny.
•  Lynching, guns & the south: exactly why my brother, my father, my
friends are NRA family (and Black)
•  Foolish and lawless gun-toters: foolish-some, lawless-no.
•  Healthcare deform debates: not nearly as scary as potential 2nd
amendment town halls.
•  Leaving firearms at home for rallies: agreed - don’t want to frighten the
ladies.

Report this

By bogi666, August 20, 2009 at 3:36 am Link to this comment

Can anyone imagine what would happen to a gun toting person at a Bush appearance where waring an ANTI BUSH T shirt, an expression of Constitutional protected Free Speech, was grounds for police harassment and possible arrest!

Report this
godistwaddle's avatar

By godistwaddle, August 20, 2009 at 2:48 am Link to this comment

Merely in the interests of self defense, lefties need at least to have firearms available, preferably in heavy calibers. Jefferson was wrong about the time frame, but the plutocrats’ blood must eventually nourish the tree of liberty.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook