The Armed Bear: What it means to wear a gun in public

"Bringing a weapon to a rally isn't about exercising your own rights -- it's about threatening other people's rights"

Oh, really? If we are going to be consistant with Supreme Court interpretation of the 1st Amendment, bringing a gun to a political rally in the manner described in the Salon article is an exercise in freedom of expression, a protected derivative of the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech. That the expression takes the form of an exercise of another Constitutionally guaranteed right seems to be at issue.

The author claims that such an exercise is a terrorist act intended to intimidation. That is true oOnly true if one chooses to be intimidated and as no will to resist. That some of our fellow citizens have made such a choice does not give them the right to require that response from the rest of us. The oft-quoted phrase, "The pen is mightier than the sword." has also been stated as, "Words are more powerful than bullets." If so, then the author is guilty of exactly what he is accusing gun-toting protesters of. Articles supporting gun control really aren't about exercising your own rights -- they are about threatening other people's rights. But worse, rather than to protest an unpopular action, the sole purpose of such articles is to threaten other people's rights. Too bad. A major reason why the rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment are so powerful is that they are protected by the right guaranteed by the 2nd. Without the latter, the former would have been lost long ago. Symbolic as it may seem to some, the threat presented by an armed citizenry is the primary fear of tyrants and despots, and removing it is an early step on their path to uncontested power.

The danger today is that too many of my fellow citizens appear willing to surrender all rights to self expression and self protection in the mistaken believe that doing so somehow contributes to a common good. It doesn't, if anything, it encourages common evil. The tyranny of the majority threatens everyone, as do the despotic actions of an all-powerful elite. The Constitution exists because the founders knew that people needed to be protected from government and therefore created a government subject to the will of the people, not vice versa. The will of people can be expressed only as long as we have freedom of speech. And we will have freedom of speech for only as long as we have access to the means to protect it.

A pointed response:

"It is time to water the tree of liberty" -- a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote promising violence.

No, not a promise of violence. Jefferson's statement was "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots.". A reference to the sacrifice necessary to preserve one's liberty. So what the sign signified was a willingness of the protester to die in defense of all citizens rights; not a threat to his fellow citizens, but a willingness to fight for them.

And this past week, 12 armed men -- including one with an assault rifle -- not only showed off their firearms at Obama's Arizona speech, but broadcast a YouTube video threatening to "forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority."

First, it was not an assault rifle. The rifle carried was a semi-automatic. An assault rifle is a fully automatic, selective fire weapon and carrying such weapons in public has been prohibited by Federal law for more than 70 years.

The tyranny of the majority -- the willingness of a majority to impose its will in disregard of the rights of the minority -- is the weakness of a democracy. It is something our form of government is designed to avoid. And it is something worth resisting with force if the Constitution is ignored.

These and other similar examples are accurately summarized with the same language federal law employs to describe domestic terrorism. Generating maximum media attention, the weapons-brandishing displays are "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

Maximum media attention? Like MSNBC's coverage of the Arizona rally? MSNBC showed a very tight shot of the man with the rifle and suggested -- no, stated -- that this demonstrated a very real threat of angry whites trying to assassinate a black president. Unfortunately, they had to use such a tight shot to avoid showing that the man carrying the rifle was black. It would have destroyed their sensationalized story which was clearly "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Who is really the terrorist here?

Like the noose in the Jim Crow South, its symbolic message is clear: If you dare engage in the democratic process, you risk bodily harm.

With that implicit threat, the incessant arguments about gun ownership have been supplanted by a more significant debate over which should take precedence: The Constitution's First or Second Amendment?

Based on America's history, the Founders' answer to that question clearly lies in the Bill of Rights' deliberate sequencing.

Of course, he has to play the race card by referencing Jim Crow, then infer an implicit threat where none really exists. As to sequencing, the author's opinion is not supported by the discussion in The Federalist Papers or by the Constitution itself. Yes, the freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and it is certainly arguable that it is of prime importance. So much so that the Constitution, after guaranteeing thatr right, guarantees the means of protecting that right by first stating that an armed populace is necessary to a free state (that freedom being guaranteed by the 1st Amendment) and therefore the people's right to be armed is guaranteed as well.