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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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….

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Please let me challenge the notion that the laws do not change when the President is in town as put forth by Robert Gibbs.  The laws allow the Feds to disarm citizens around the President and foreign dignitaries.  I wish I could quote the statute but I have seen it enforced and trust that it is law. 

When a libertarian brings a gun to a presidential event, they may argue with words about liberty.  By their actions they are arguing for a larger security state and the expenditure of tax dollars that the extra Secret Service Agents entail. 

The second amendment is not about individual gun rights.  It is about militias, well regulated militias.  The founding fathers knew how to right a law about individual gun rights, they did not.  The NRA campaign to misinterpret the second amendment has made too much progress.

E. J. has swallowed the idea that the U.S. is about spreading democracy, those are the words not the deeds.  Go read some Chomsky.  Ballots over bullets, this is one time I would recommend believing and living the hype.

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.

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.

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!

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.