A "Disturbing" New Trend

Last week, I posted "Remember...when *we* protest we're terrorists...", regarding the substantial difference between many anti-Bush left wing protests and the current folks out attempting to explain to the Statists that we don't appreciate their attempts to turn this once Great Nation into a cesspool of Marxism.

A comment was left by Cheddar, one of my longer standing readers, asking this:

How about the open carry folks in AZ at BHO's speech?

One thing I really like about Cheddar is their penchant for asking fair, well phrased questions that make me think. Great job by the way Cheddar, I always value your questions for kicking me up into the next level of thinking.

He was referencing this late breaking story today:


Ok, let's get past the anchor's idiocy calling it a "machine gun", and ignore the on-site reporter's eye rolling and not so subtle emphasis on certain words in order to attempt to denigrate the gentleman carrying the rifle. Honestly, I had actually made an attempt to seek out the Fox station in Phoenix for this embed in the hopes that some of that crap would be minimized.

Here, in my opinion, is what you have:

1. The Police made absolutely no arrests, not even for some lame trumped up trespassing or disturbing the peace charge.
   
2. The gentleman with the AR-15 has it slung, muzzle end down. He isn't holding it in hand, brandishing it, or otherwise acting "threatening.
   
3. He isn't trying to get into the event.
   
4. He has even taken the time to put on a tie and slacks, a very nice touch designed to prevent the "red-neck" sliming you just know these panty-wetting "journalists" want to slap on him.
   
5. He further is gifted with being able to conduct a coherent, thoughtful, reasonable conversation with the reporter interviewing him.
   

Take note of that last statement because I want no misunderstanding - I say that for no other reason than many folks of all walks of life, when they get on camera, can get a bit tongue tied or have affectations to their speech patterns that aren't the polished speeches and manicured accents you might be used to hearing on television. Take a quick listen to the people asking questions or making statements at any town hall and you'll quickly glom on to what I mean. This guy does a great job representing his view!

Is he there to make a statement? Yes. What statement is that? According to him, it is to exercise his rights under Arizona State Law (which I absolutely love being a former Arizonan myself) and the Constitution of the United States, while demonstrating his distaste for ObamaCare. In my opinion, what better way to call attention to the Bill of Rights than to exercise your First Amendment rights and your Second Amendment rights all at the same time?

You see, it's not about the fact that he was carrying weapons. In a recent article by Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman, a Statist hoplophobe reader named Frank asked:

Would it be appropriate for black and hispanic people to be allowed to openly carry guns everywhere in public, as well as to Town Hall meetings with Republican Congressmen?

I responded:

I would *love* to see more people peaceably carrying legal firearms. Fortunately I, unlike Frank, understand that race does not play a role in one's Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The key to my statement is "peacably". That is, not being threatening, not acting mad dog crazy, not making nasty gestures or innuendos that violence could result, just simply carrying a firearm for what it is - a metal tool. A metal tool that can launch projectiles very accurately and at high speed, something to be respected, but still a metal tool. You'll notice the camera showing him with it slung muzzle down, and secured by his arm, but otherwise just sitting there.

This is in stark contrast to this:

Notice the gentleman with the truncheon. He has it in hand, waving it back and forth, and gestures with it while asking questions. He's also doing so at a polling place, in a position where they are obstructing the entrance. Their stances are confrontational, challenging. Some of the challenge in their voice may be to what sounds like a slightly snarky college student who is a little antagonistic himself - admittedly.

So back to our protester at the Obama speech. He's acting friendly, relaxed, and in control. He knows why he is there - to protest peacefully, and instead of a Gadsden Flag or a sign, he has chosen a firearm to show as his symbol of defiance against the ever rising tyranny in our Government. Now ask yourself these questions:

1. If he had done anything more outlandish than stand there and probably chant and yell with the protesters, do you think that he would have been arrested?
   
2. Assuming he wasn't arrested after doing something outlandish, do you really think the media would have used different footage than him standing there talking quietly with the reporter or standing in the crowd?
   

We know how the media wanted this to happen. They wanted him rabidly yelling at the camera, maybe waving the rifle around Platoon style, etc. Ok, fine, I chose a Fox News related station. How about CNN?

That we don't see any of this footage, not even on CNN, tells us volumes about his good conduct. The CNN reporter even talks of ANOTHER man in the crowd with an "patrol rifle". Again, no arrests, nobody shot, everything nice and calm.

Ultimately, I think the best quote came from Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan (who actually seems to have his head screwed on reasonably straight to be sure), who said:

"In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon."

And that's it right there. The folks showing up are legally carrying firearms under their local state laws, and certainly under the auspices of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, while not actually intimating violence in any way, shape, or form, are likely those among us whom I feel are the most grounded in the true sense of Liberty that this Country was founded upon.

That some folks are hoplophobes and have bought into Helmke's sewage, leading them to wrongfully believe that the mere presence of a firearm turns anyone into a slavering ravening killer, are not in any position to lecture me on my rights. As I have posted in the past, those rights are granted simply by dint of my being on this planet, and can not be revoked or questioned by man.

I say that so long as these folks are not creating a situation in which the Secret Service feels that their job can not be performed adequately, and are remaining on the proper side of the law (and yes, to say that in light of my statement immediately above is a little contradictory, but face it - we don't need that kind of publicity - not yet at least), I wish that more people would show up peaceably exercising their rights like this. If nothing else, these folks remind the Statists in power of just how tenuous their hold is on those they would rule. These gentlemen now showing up armed to places where there are likely SS Snipers pointing large calibers at them are refreshing that little wedge of "oh shit" doubt in the Statists' heads. This idea is much better explained by Vanderboegh in recent his post entitled: Gambit: "Waco Jim" Cavanaugh and Gran Torino

As to what the Statist term is for these armed Patriots - it's likely:
Pencil-dicked Redneck Rightwing Teabaggers. Damned straight.