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.

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.

n. 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.

. 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

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.

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.

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.

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:

Bringing a very large number of poor people to a public event about civil rights reform reform near the center of government of the United States is anything but heroic. It’s a mockery of the 1st Amendment, disrespectful to the public, and makes him and his defenders look delusional and dangerous.

Certainly, an action may be politically wise or not, and of course that is a seperate issue.

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?

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,

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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:

given that a gun’s only action is destruction.

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.