Not every election ends as one hopes. That’s true for major-party members, and at least as much for members of third parties. There are millions of people disappointed that Pres. Obama was re-elected, as there were many who were disappointed that Pres. Bush was re-elected. Neither outcome is what many Americans wanted, although in both cases an absolute majority of those voting re-elected the incumbent.
What’s changed about America, for the worse, is that a small and shrill number are so dissatisfied that they toss about threats of secession, extreme claims to a right of armed revolution that could never reasonably apply to our times, calls to arrest federal officials conducting their duties within Wisconsin, or efforts to disrupt peaceful protests with insistence on these wrongful claims.
Consider the unfortunate case of a peaceful group, Wisconsin Guns Across America, that wants to demonstrate on behalf of their Second Amendment rights. They’re nonviolent, are organizing to assemble peaceably, to protest what they consider excessive firearms regulations. Despite their sincere efforts, they’ve had to suffer utter loons who will only tarnish their Wisconsin Capitol protest:
Fellow Patriots: It has come to our attention that some of the side bar conversations that are occurring, have alarmed some of our fellow patriots that are planning on bringing their families to the event on Saturday. The event page is meant to help quickly and effectively get logistical information from the organizers out to families that want to come to celebrate and promote their second amendment rights with us on Saturday. We at Wisconsin’s Guns Across America Event do NOT condone any messages or behaviors that even hint at revolutions or domestic terrorism, even if it’s just offered up as a response to a “Highly Hypothetical Situation.” If you want to have that type of dialogue, please find a different place to do so. Any comments that can be interpreted to be threatening or intended to incite violence will be taken seriously; you will be banned from this page, and reported to The Wisconsin Capitol Police. This is not up for discussion.
I have a responsibility to all who are present to preserve order and peace. And I have a responsibility to adhere to Facebook’s Terms of Service. “See Part 3 Safety, Part 7 You will not post content that: is hate speech, threatening, or incites violence. “Paraphrased” I ask that you refrain from posting anything questionable. If you think some of your posts might possibly be objectionable, I encourage you to take them down. Time is drawing near for our event. I ask that we stay focused on the true meaning of this rally. That is: Peaceful Protest against any new Gun Laws represented before Congress.
Thank you for all your support!
Earl Arrowood – WI Organizer/Guns Across America
As a secondary problem, extreme threats and claims only offer an excuse for over-reaching officials to harass peaceful protesters, photographers, and activists. There should (and really can) be no relent on asserting one’s rights, but the actual threats of a few make exaggerations about peaceful speech more tempting for government officials. Once that appetite is whetted…
We’ve had episodes in our history of excessive fears over peaceful conduct (such as overblown claims of a lack of patriotism during the First World War and during subsequent Red Scares). No doubt, Kaiser Wilhelm II’s Germany was an autocratic place, and communism was and always will be an immoral, oppressive ideology, but nonviolent opposition to that war or discussions of Marxism should not have been tantamount to crimes.
People of diverse views will still exercise their rights under the law, the false claims and wrongful conduct of a few others notwithstanding.
But “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow…”
Posted also at Daily Adams.
hmmmm….I’m a gun supporter, but do have some concerns. This is purely conjecture on my part, so take it how you will….
First, to address the 2nd amendment issue. Many gun supporters are concered that their 2nd amendment rights are being violated. They are not. The waiting period and background check is the best way we have – today – to prevent guns from falling into the hands of those unfit to own them. I can’t think of any reason that anyone purchasing a gun would “need it today”. Regardless of what the 2nd amendment says, I believe the phrase ‘with rights come responsibility’ fits here.
2nd. As a hunter and firearm owner, I can not see any reason for anyone to own a piece of ammunition that is built for the purpose of killing a high number of people quickly and efficiently. Assualt rifles and high-capacity magazines are not needed by anyone other than a soldier who is currerntly in combat. The “personal protection” defense doesn’t fly. A single round will do the job in that case – if needed.
With regard to right of any group to peacable assemble, this I support. However, my concern is that (and this is purely suspicion on my part) many if not most of the attendees, by virtue of our concealed carry law and the amendment they support will be armed at this assembly. I don’t have all the answers but I believe a group of armed people gathered together could be called a miltia. If the organizer called for attendees to leave their weapons at home, I would be more comfortable.
Welcome as always for stopping by.
I’d always start out with the hope of as few government restrictions as possible, including on guns. Still, I’ll concede two points.
First, in a world of pure bargaining (where there was no 2nd Amendment or any court interpretations of the right to own firearms), even I’d trade a waiting period for the right to conditions of use like concealed or open carry, or the right to handguns as well as long-barrel firearms.
A waiting period simply seems less restrictive to me. One would prefer the state didn’t delay any consumer transactions, but this delay is (relatively) less restrictive (while from the point of view of those favoring restrictions helpful in screening against risk).
If that screening were no different from that for a Wisconsin handgun purchase, it would be a reasonable trade (from my point of view).
I’m a gun owner but not a hunter; it’s target shooting and a general right of defense that motivate my ownership. I have no use for an assault rifle for any purpose, as my interests are better served with other firearms. I’d guess that most people knowledgeable about guns would agree with me, about those needs.
I’d not stop others from buying them (absent a screening trade mentioned above), but they’ll not be purchases for me.
Finally, about guns at rallies, etc. I don’t disagree about the idea of comfort. Much as I support the right, one does seem to meet more people who don’t show the necessary caution and respect around firearms as one once saw. Biggest risk at a large invent probably isn’t anyone intending harm, but a reckless accident.
I’m out and about like most people, and don’t typically assess the risks of events, again as most people don’t. But if people are bring their children to the event, among a large group, they do need to think about the risk of someone else’s foolish mistake.
Needless to say, I very much hope that’s never an outcome at a rally, but I understand that never is the one thing that really never happens.