Recently there have been several instances of people showing up to presidential town halls with loaded weapons. They claim to be defending a beseiged right of gun ownership. How well does that explanation stand up?
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post
Since Barack Obama’s election there has been a sharp increase in the level of irrational, paranoid conspiracy mongering on the right. Much of it is at least ostensibly grounded in defense of the Second Amendment, so just for review here is its text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It begins with a clause that greatly confuses what follows. If it had simply read, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” then all would be clear. But as written, should firearms only be borne by those participating in a well regulated militia? Or should they only be permitted to be kept in anticipation of being (and presumably as part of a formal arrangement to be) used in such a capacity? Those who invoke it the loudest seem to usually only concentrate on the second half of the amendment, not the first.
In any event, the craziness was initially stoked by the National Rifle Association during the campaign. By lying with differing degrees of brazenness it created several falsehoods (Obama would increase taxes on guns and ammunition, ban handguns for individuals’ use in defending their homes, etc.) which have since metastasized into the complete fantasy that a gun ban is imminent. It has already resulted in multiple murders. The plain fact is, as a Senator, candidate and president he has not proposed any such new taxes. He briefly flirted with the idea of reinstating a lapsed ban on assault weapons, but backed off. More broadly, the only recent Supreme Court ruling on the issue was a ringing endorsement of an individual right to gun ownership. Last year both candidates staked out firmly anti-gun control positions. No one in or running for Congress will even bring the topic up. Gun ownership has never been more protected, more celebrated or less stigmatized. Those who claim their Second Amendment rights are endangered are either entirely uninformed or not telling the truth.
Why then have some started showing up armed to political meetings? Is there some danger requiring an armed presence? Of course not. Or at least, there is none that they do not create themselves by showing up openly carrying loaded guns (file under “self-fulfilling prophesy”). Unfortunately, some in the media rushed to legitimize such actions by interviewing those involved. Even when done skeptically it still amounts to validation. As Rick Perlstein asked of the press corps (via):
if they were reporters in Weimar Germany when Nazi street thugs starting using violence as a way to settle political disputes, when would you begin to report–not opine, report–that democracy was under threat? (Because that is the definition of democracy: the ability to settle political questions without violence.)
Once armed supporters start turning up to political events we are perilously close to just such a scenario. Yet those involved – even when they have remarkably disturbing histories – are offered mainstream platforms to broadcast their messages. Those considered well away from the fringe, such as gun-rights expert Dave Kopel, only offer nonsensical justifications as well (via):
“While I think it’s really paranoid for some of the media to falsely characterize this as people trying to threaten the president, I think it shows bad judgement to carry [guns] near a presidential speech,” he says. Protesters are “trying to make a statement about Second Amendment rights, but they’re doing it in a way that probably sets back that cause.”
Why does Kopel consider it to be bad judgment that sets back the cause? He throws it out there as a way to seem reasonable to those he surely knows are put off by such displays, but under the Maximum Armament logic being extolled how could it possibly be bad? Devil’s advocate arguments aside, he cannot know what those individuals are thinking, and considering our history of political assassination it strains credulity to deny that someone legally carrying at a presidential event might just have a fleeting thought in that direction. But even for those with no such intent it makes no sense to say they are trying to make a statement about the Second Amendment; there is absolutely nothing under consideration – or even on the horizon – that would curtail even the most permissive interpretation of it.
People who show up packing heat to town hall events are not defending their homes from invasion, resisting a government attempt to seize their arms, deterring crime in a hazardous environment, providing personal security when traveling to the bad part of town, or otherwise assuring the security of a free state. They are doing something much more primitive: trying to intimidate their political opponents through the threat of violence.
