Another American Hero
by tdaxp ~ August 18th, 2009
Just like Dr. Henry Louis Gates, the man in this video is an American Hero
In situations where most of us would have avoided exercising our constitutionally-protected rights out of fear of the persecution of an incompetent union cop, Dr Gates stood up for himself. Likewise, in situations where some would have been afraid of the Secret Service, the man in the video stood up for himself.
More important, Gates stood up for the First Amendment. This man stood up for the Second Amendment. Both stood up for the Constitution.
The difference? The Secret Service is a highly trained and professional organization. It respects the Constitution.
Sgt. Crowley, by contrast, is an ex-EMT whose other high profile failure was the death of Reggie Lewis.
The Secret Service is a top-notch organization, trained and professional, and my hat off to them.
Crowley should be indicted.
August 18th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Inspiring!
I think I will stand up for the Ninth Amendment.
August 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Every day I don’t file suit against Delaware is another day of standing up for the 11th
August 18th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Do you remember the ’support Bush signs’ that were taken away from your family members when Clinton was at our local public highschool homecoming game? I still can’t figure that one out.
August 18th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Yes.
Perhaps the Obama S.S. is less politicized than Clinton’s iteration?
Wouldn’t surprise me.
August 18th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU&feature=player_embedded
Out of curiosity, how would you contrast the incident with this video, if you choose to at all.
Needless to say, I don’t think non-security forces should stand outside of a polling station with billy clubs, so you could guess what my opinion is of private citizens having firearms in close proximity to the president.
Then again, I masturb-te to videos showing the Branch Davidian compound on fire while moaning “I love you ATF!”, so I am kind of on the fringe in that regard.
August 18th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Ah the joys of a union-free American organization!
The Secret Service actually has standards, pride, and a devotion to duty and country one in nearly each and every member past and present (and will be quick to get rid of anyone who does not fit that bill). They are not a unionized bunch with incentives built in to tolerate incompetence and malcontents, or with good and productive members forced to accept lousy ones in the name of solidarity.
August 18th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
I guess I was correct at Chicago Boyz when I suggested that tdaxp’s support for Gates was for tactical reasons? Tdaxp pretty much agreed but corrected me that putting the Constitution before anything is actually a strategic move rather than purely tactical.
With that said, somethings a little “fishy” about that African American man with the AR-15? The Establishment has been panicking lately over the recent behavior of the white working and middle classes (WWAMC). They fear that they might be losing control of the WWAMC, as the WWAMC see themselves as being alone against a coalition of non-white minority groups, Marxist-liberals, and the financial elite.
This may be an attempt to show the WWAMC that black people stand against the “communist gun grabbers who want to ruin their country” just as the WWAMC does? This man is “proof” that “Patriots” of all colors and creeds must stand together against “the people who want to ruin our country.” He’s a symbol that we must “embrace diversity” even in the face of forced diversity, as it will take a rainbow to raise above “those who wish to take our country from us.”
The idea is confuse the part of the brain which causes people to organize and pursue their ethnic interests under stress of out-group encroachment. Of course I might 100% wrong? The thing to look for is whether this guy starts popping up on cable TV and talk radio as a new “Joe the Plumber” type. I’ll be on the lookout……
August 18th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
I disagree with you here, Dan. There is nothing heroic about bringing an assault rifle to ANY public event. You said the man in the video was standing up for himself — against what?
Guns are inherently aggressive, and they make people agitated (see Weapons Effect). Couldn’t the man just not pay his taxes and show his unrest like a gentleman? He would have saved everyone else a lot of worry.
There was no reason for him to pull this stunt, save baiting the media. I’m sad he got what he wanted and sad that he wasn’t arrested.
August 19th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Arrested for what?
August 19th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
[...] of his spunky reply (and that we are on similar career tracks and share many friends), I have added [...]
August 20th, 2009 at 5:09 am
The men exercising open carry at these events are part of a larger open carry movement that’s been gaining momentum for a few years now. They believe that by open carrying, they can better antiquate people with the idea that open carry is not only legal but should be encouraged.
This movement is also highly divisive in the greater 2nd Amendment community since many see this kind of action as counter to the 2A community’s push towards positively changing the public perception of firearms. Tyler highlights this perception issue succinctly. Guns make people agitated, and this perception needs to change if 2nd Amendment laws are to become more liberal.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Jeffrey,,
Regarding the armed black panthers near polling places…
I am very suspicious of electioneering laws in general. From talk of prohibiting bloggers from endorsing candidates, to campaign finance reform, to ‘hate speech’ rules on public campuses, to this incident, there is a great attempt by the political duopolgy to prevent competition against them. The GOP and the Dems are the Vista and MasterCard of politics.
This is particially obviously with the “New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense” (NBP), whose political competition is entirely directed at the Democratic Party (there are few Republican-voting black voters to be had). Many of the NBP’s positions are zany, but the basic message that urban blacks face violence and injustice is certainly reasonable.
Eddie,
Well said. The decision to allow the police to unionize is as crazy, if you think about it, as letting the army unionize. Their job is to protect us fro violence. Hard working conditions are implicit in the job description.
Military veterans, however, are able to use the vast size of their consituency to lobby for government protecetions in other areas of their lives. If police officers are serious about being peace officers, they should do the same.
Seerok & daskro,
This movement can be compared to the March on Washington [1] or the Bonus Army [2], as a peaceful movement that implicitly raises the specter of violence. Such a movement is controversial (indeed, the controversy is one of the objectives), and may succeed or fail. I’m generally skeptical of such attempts at political reform, though the right to assemble in such a peaceful way in not contestable.
Tyler,
Thanks for your comment! I have added your blog to my google reader! [3]
Sure there is, if such an action is legal and may result in arbitrary arrest.
In the same way, there is something heroic about voting, if one has been wrongly disenfranchised.
Arbitrary arrest. The parrallel is to Dr. Gates, who likewise stood up for himself. [4]
I would be extremely cautious with this line of argument, if I were you, because it quickly leads to very dangerous places.
Say that one can establish (via IATs [5] or some behavioral test) that the treatment of the presense of guns raises anxiety, etc. So? IATs also indicate the the presense of black men raises anxiety (indeed, this is their most famous use) and the behavioral impact of blacks on cooperation is well known [6,7]. What then is the right of individuals to form assemblies (say, housing projects, apartment projects, swimming pools, etc), that discriminate based on the possession of a trait that is ‘inherenly aggressive’ by the standard you use?
What forms of speech are ‘inherently aggressive,’ make people agitated etc. Calling Obama a socialist? Bush a fascist? Saying that ObamaCare will result in dead old people [8]?
The Constitution does not protect only actions that are not annoying. Indeed, there is little purpose in such protections, as they are unlikely to be banned in the first place.
I hope you can answer Jay’s question as to what crime this man committed.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Washington_for_Jobs_and_Freedom
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army
[3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/08/19/following-a-new-blog.html
[4] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/07/31/henry-louis-gates-american-hero.html
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_Association_Test
[6] http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/eraserace.pdf
[7] http://www.socialcohesion.eu/7.%20EUI.ppt
[8] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/08/13/death-panels-and-who-will-die.html
August 20th, 2009 at 10:18 am
I was being brash when I commented the man who brought the assault rifle to a public presendential event should be arrested. The law protects him from such arrest. However, I will do my part to publicly shame him.
That said, I maintain my position that guns should never be allowed at ANY public events. Because what is the point of having them at such events? What was he trying to accomplish? Daskro, commented the 2nd Amendment community is attempting to ACCUSTOM the public to open-carry laws. I don’t dispute this, but I am curious why the public should be encouraged to carry weapons in public. What will this accomplish?
Dan, your comment on the IAT is a good one. I agree, you could use the IAT procedure to assess implicit associations individuals have about guns. But the two categories (race & guns) cannot be put together. Results from various IAT studies suggest images of black people are associated with “bad” and images of white people are assoc. with “good.” This pattern of results clearly reflects a social issue and personal opinions on race. Furthermore one’s opinions are neither correct or incorrect.
In contrast, negative associations about guns could be considered correct, or true, given that a gun’s only action is destruction.
If there is one question I would like answered, it is “What is the point?”
What is the point of bringing an assault rifle to a public event?
Daskro used the term antiquated, I think incorrectly. But it’s ironic, because the 2nd Amendment is most definitely antiquated.
Peace. -Tyler
August 20th, 2009 at 10:26 am
[...] August 20th, 2009 Tyler Leave a comment Go to comments Enjoying a nice discussion over at TDAXP about the 2nd Amendment and the man who was seen carrying an assault rifle at a recent U.S. [...]
August 20th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Tyler,
Thanks for the comment.
You raise several good points, so I will try to address each. In this comment I will address the importance of the 2nd amendment. I will address your other points later this afternoon.
The second amendment is not antiquated.
Indeed, it works with the right like a hand in a glove. In the same way the infrastructure of government does not matter much without the First Amendment, the protection of speech does not matter much without the Second.
The police is under no obligation to protect you. There are no civil or criminal penalties for the police to allow crime to happen to you. This has been elucidated numerous times, but one of the best summaries is the Warren case [1].
Now, obviously, as local police are sustained by community and state governments, they will provide protection to influential members of the community and state. Otherwise they will face political pressure. But the police are naturally indifferent to the powerlss, and hostile to those who oppose them. It’s easy enough to think of examples of both inaction.
If there was no 2nd Amendment, the politically weak would be entirely dependent on the arbitrary favor of the police. American history provides examples, from the Klan to the mafia to drug gangs, which the police allow to operate because the police are either sympathetic to the organization’s aims or else the organization provides support to the police.
With the 2nd Amendment, weak groups are able to defend themselves from violence, and thus continue to exist even if the police cease to protect them.
Of course, this is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. That the composition of the armed groups have changed over time (the Klan was unknown to the Revolutionaries, while tribes not taxed were feared), the nature of this threat to liberty has remained.
Clearly, the groups most active in fighting for the 2nd amendment tend to not to be those who mostneed it, just as those who fight for free speech are often not the target of anti-speech legislation. This is the testament to the public spirit of those who fight for our liberties.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
August 20th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Tyler,
Of the rest of the comment, everythign seems to hinge on this half of one sentence. I don’t think it is out of context to say you wrote:
Of course this is not true.
Indeed, a counter-example is provided by my original post.
In this case, the presense of a gun serves as political speech. Specifically, it is used as a prop to advocate a state of affairs that relates strongly to “self-help” in the context of personal safety.
You need to be careful about the difference between a brute fact (something that is unarguable true) and meaning (facts in context). For instance, several brute facts which are correct about the actions of guns. These include such mundane features as the propulsion of the projectile is derived entirely from its initial firing, that the projectile first travels through a narrow tube, and that not all uses of guns involve firing a projectile.
These facts can be given a meaning, such as destruction, protection, saving, and killing.
When you say, “a gun’s only action is destruction,” you are engaging in a rhetorical slight of hand. The rhetorical steps are
1. using “action,” thus implying you are going to discuss brute facts
2. using “destruction,” giving an example of a context or meaning
3. using “only,” which implies that because many brute facts concerning the use of guns could be arranged to form a pattern, context, or meaning of “destruction,” this meaning is both universally true of all “actions” a gun may have and is a privileged meaning to all other contexts (“self-help,” “safety,” “community protection,”) and so on.
I’m a bit surprised you used this strategy, as a more straight-forward one is that an individual is helpless as to his race, but not helpless as to his possession of a firearm. Still, in that case, the natural reply is that an individual is not helpless as to his speech, but we provide constitutional status for that, and that an individual is helpless as to his personal security in many cases in the absense of firearms, etc.
August 20th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
That was quite an astute reading of that half-sentence. I did choose my words carefully, I didn’t think I was being that careful though:) Bravo on your analysis and thank you for introducing me to new concepts.
I knew you and your readers might “hiccup” when you read the “destruction” sentence. I, of course, can think of other uses (e.g. marksmanship) and vacillated on whether or not to bring this up.
I think you are overstating the status of some citizens (i.e. the “weak” and “politically powerless”). I’m not naive to think individuals without means are at a disadvantage, but I may be too much of an optimist and have a hard time believing that state/local/federal governments are complicit in the aims of organizations like the Klu Klux Klan clan.
I’m not sure you answered my question (“What is the point?”). Perhaps your claim is that his bringing an assault rifle to the event was an act of political speech. If this is true, what was he saying? or was he simply flaunting the fact he COULD carry a weapon? What is the ultimate goal here?
Also, do not get me wrong. I support the 2nd Amendment, but not in it’s antiquated form. Citizens have no need for assault weapons.
BTW have you read about in-utero delivered IAT? I’ll send .pdf back channel.
August 20th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
hi tdaxp,
Bringing an assault weapon to a public event about health care reform featuring the President of the United States is anything but heroic. It’s a mockery of the 2nd Amendment, disrespectful to the public, and makes him and his defenders look delusional and dangerous.
You ought to reread your recent response as I think you’ve drifted far from the common sense of this situation. Just because it’s his right doesn’t make it appropriate. What point is he trying to make?
August 21st, 2009 at 6:14 am
TRJfromOhio,
Thank you for your comment.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s march on Washington could have been criticized as follows, using the same standard you are using:
Certainly, an action may be politically wise or not, and of course that is a seperate issue.
Again, the same fair criticism could be laid against MLK. I’m not defending the political wisdom of his action, as I was not defending the political wisdom of Dr. Gates a while back. Rather, I am applauding someone for not refusing to use his rights out of fear.
Tyler,
One of the great things about blogging is the ability to share experience and knowledge across different sections of rreaders. For instance, I am currently editing a book on violence. In the volume is a chapter by Brent Grance, “The War for Robert Taylor,” which disccuses the complicity of the Chicago police department with the Black Knights criminal organization. This included setting up “Local Advisory Councils” and serving as an arbitration board in determining the zones of illegal drug delivery and marketing. The chapter relies heavily on two published sociologies:
Venkatesh, S. A. (2002). American project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Venkatesh, S. A. (2008). Gang leader for a day: A rogue sociologist takes to the streets. New York: Penguin Press.
Vankatesh (2002) is an academic work, while Vankatesh (2008) is a popularization.
The point is that rights whither when they are not used out of fear.
However, as I’ve said before, the political wisdom of using his right in this way is a seperate discussion.
Why use this umbrella term from the 1994 law? How can it be shown to be a reasonable limit, and not something more or less expansive?
August 21st, 2009 at 3:08 pm
tdxp,
I like the MLK/civil rights comparison. That’s an effective way for me to understand the legal perspective you’re bringing to this issue, and I can agree with it. However, brandishing an assault weapon at a health care event featuring the President still communicates, to me, a certain disconnect. I’d be a little tense and confused if I was there. I think we can agree that it was unwise and a little silly. When the poor gathered at Washington, their identities and presence were directly symbolic towards the issue at hand. That’s not the case here.
Nice work! I like your style.
August 21st, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I have three comments.
One, even though he technically had a right to carry a weapon, bringing the weapon to a meeting with the president is the equivalent to crying ‘FIRE’ in a croweded room, which would be an abuse of freedom of speech.
Two, the only way in which the second amendment is antiquated is that any reference to ‘a well regulated militia’ should be removed. The second amendment should make crystal clear that citizens have an unquestioned right to carry a firearm, period.
And as an aside, any reference to assault rifle is crap, there is virtually no difference between an assault rifle and any other semi-automatic rifle except it’s physical form (it has a pistol grip). And in fact it is generally a smaller caliber than most hunting rifles.
Last, Gates is just a loud-mouthed racist who was not just practicing his first amendment rights, but was interfering with a police officer in the conduct of his duties, which is why he was arrested.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:04 am
The only trouble I have with guns-at-presidential-rallies is the same problem the Right always saw in al-Qaeda etc.: Iit only takes one loon getting through the defenses to cause a major national tragedy and disruption.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Curtis,
Instead of comparing this to al Qaeda, a much better comparison is to King’s March on Washington. A constitutional excercize that was pregnant with violence.
Still, most people only support the Constitution when it protects their friends, so few on either side would accept the comparison
Rex A,
bringing the weapon to a meeting with the president is the equivalent to crying ‘FIRE’ in a croweded room, which would be an abuse of freedom of speech.
Do you say this also for bringing in hundreds of thousands disenfranchised and poor Americans to the nation’s capital?
Last, Gates is just a loud-mouthed racist who was not just practicing his first amendment rights, but was interfering with a police officer in the conduct of his duties, which is why he was arrested.
Its striking that even Crowley, who told three accounts of what happened, would appear to disagree. Crowley was not arrested for interferring with the police investigation, etc., but on a vague (and immediately dropped) charge of public disturbance.
TRJfromOhio,
When the poor gathered at Washington, their identities and presence were directly symbolic towards the issue at hand. That’s not the case here.
Not sure I follow. One enjoys the due process of law, and ones rights as a citizen of the United States, whether one belongs to a particular race or whether one owns a fire-arm. The Marchers brought their race with them. Indeed, that was the point. This protestor brought his gun with him. This, too, was the point.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Oh I thing the AQ comparison was a little over-the-top in the sense that so much else in the comparison wouldn’t fit.
My point, though, is that while 99.99% of gun-toting Americans at presidential rallies might simply be deciding to “stand up for the 2nd Amendment”, it’s the .01% loon factor that is the real problem. It only takes one, getting through the defenses around the President, to cause much tragedy and havoc in America.
While I am on the subject (a diversion for me), I had the thought after leaving my comment that these gun-toting Americans in question are really making a mockery of the Constitution. Let me explain. The point in the Amendment, as far as I can determine, is that the average American (or even non-average American) has the right to defend himself against any manner of tyranny, whether that be against the state or against other freedom-loving Americans. But these activists in question can hardly be said to be wearing their firearms at presidential rallies from a desire to protect themselves: No, no, they are “making a statement”. Their actions are in support of, and a result of, abstractions and ideologies, rather than the hard-core, reality-based purpose behind the 2nd Amendment. Since interpretation of the Amendment and application of protections based on the Amendment can not come from a state’s perception of citizens’ motivations but only on a strictly literal interpretation and observation — he is wearing a firearm — the state cannot step in to say, No; but while this is true and their right must be protected, these gun-toting ideologues can rest assured but are not exempt from a criticism that they are making a mockery of the Constitution.
August 31st, 2009 at 5:55 am
Curtis,
This is reasonable, and matches reasonable fears of the March on Washington. There were about 300,000 marches, and it is unreasonable to think that only .01% of marchers were what riots were made of (young, disenfranchised, poor, angry).
It was a remarkable show of political power that King kept the crowd peaceful. Sistani worked similar feats in Iraq.
. Their actions are in support of, and a result of, abstractions and ideologies, rather than the hard-core, reality-based purpose behind the 2nd Amendment.
Not sure what you mean here. The Constitution is an applied philosophy, it is a set of abstractions and ideologies applied to hard-core, reality-based purposes.
[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2009/08/18/another-american-hero.html#comment-303369