During Obama's recent town halls, there's been some footage of people bringing guns and brandishing them. This is supposedly an attempt to showcase "American freedoms" in the face of a liberal agenda.

Yet if we think about it, where are guns usually brought into the political conversation, as is the case here?

Well, how about Vladimir Putin's Russia? Guns enter the picture there as a means of achieving certain goals without going thru the democratic process, obviously. The bullet, or its symbol, represents that which is anathema to democratic means: namely, violence. In the political arena, guns are a way of bypassing democracy, not affirming it. History is full of sad examples. Russia, Nazi Germany, Iraq. But the American way has always been different.

When the Founding Fathers were creating this new democracy, the "bullet-over-ballot" approach to political events was precisely what they did NOT want, and tried to safeguard against. In contrast, their democratic experiment was one of "ballot-over-bullet." So when these gun-carrying crazies at town halls now invoke the Founding Fathers, that's actually an irony of humongous proportions.

Article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...id=opinionsbox1

quote:

Try a thought experiment: What would conservatives have said if a group of loud, scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush? How would our friends on the right have reacted to someone at a Reagan or a Bush speech carrying a sign that read: "It is time to water the tree of liberty"? That would be a reference to Thomas Jefferson's declaration that the tree "must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Pardon me, but I don't think conservatives would have spoken out in defense of the right of every American Marxist to bear arms or to shed the blood of tyrants. In fact, the Bush folks didn't like any dissent at all. Recall the 2004 incident in which a distraught mother whose son was killed in Iraq was arrested for protesting at a rally in New Jersey for first lady Laura Bush. The detained woman wasn't even armed. Maybe if she had been carrying, the gun lobby would have defended her. The Obama White House purports to be open to the idea of guns outside the president's appearances. "There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally," Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, said on Tuesday. "Those laws don't change when the president comes to your state or locality." Gibbs made you think of the old line about the liberal who is so open-minded he can't even take his own side in an argument. What needs to be addressed is not the legal question but the message that the gun-toters are sending. This is not about the politics of populism. It's about the politics of the jackboot. It's not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It's about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence. There is a philosophical issue here that gets buried under the fear that so many politicians and media-types have of seeming to be out of touch with the so-called American heartland. The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument. Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them. On the contrary, violence and the threat of violence have always been used by those who wanted to bypass democratic procedures and the rule of law. Lynching was the act of those who refused to let the legal system do its work. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments. Yes, I have raised the racial issue, and it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president's public events only now, when the president is black. Race is not the only thing at stake here, and I have no knowledge of the personal motivations of those carrying the weapons. But our country has a tortured history on these questions, and we need to be honest about it. Those with the guns should know what memories they are stirring. And will someone please tell the armed demonstrators how foolish and lawless they make our country look in the eyes of so much of the world? Are we not the country that urges other nations to see the merits of the ballot over the bullet? All this is taking place as the country debates the president's health-care proposal. There is much that is disturbing in that discussion. Shouting down speakers is never a good thing, and many lies are being told about the contents of the health-care bills. The lies should be confronted, but freedom involves a lot of commotion and an open contest of ideas, even when some of the parties say things that aren't true and act in less than civil ways. Yet if we can't draw the line at the threat of violence, democracy begins to disintegrate. Power, not reason, becomes the stuff of political life. Will some group of responsible conservatives, preferably life members of the NRA, have the decency to urge their followers to leave their guns at home when they go out to protest the president? Is that too much to ask?

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

Last edited by HardTranceProd on Aug-21-2009 at 02:29