Log In | Register
At a protest rally outside a Town Hall meeting in Arizona, a man showed up with a rifle slung over his shoulder. He's not the only one to show up with a weapon. Several other people were observed carrying side arms. Arizona is an Open Carry state. This means that a loaded weapon may be carried legally in public so long as it is clearly visible. To carry a concealed weapon, one must obtain a permit to do so. It is unknown if any or how many concealed weapons were present at this protest.
This has made quite a stir in the media, and of course the liberals and progressives are as usual whining, pissing, moaning, and complaining about it. They've had much to say concerning this citizen and his decision to exercise his rights under State and Federal law.
First, let's be clear. The Second Amendment, as recently affirmed by the Supreme Court, allows an individual right to keep and bare arms. Second, Arizona law allows for the open carry of such weapons. So this man and the others with visible weapons were completely within their rights and the boundaries of the law to carry said weapons at this rally. This has been affirmed by the Sherriff of that county.
But the libs and progs are still upset. They would argue that this display is a form of intimidation. That he used poor judgment. That the display of firearms has no place at a protest against health care.
Well. In the words of Samuel L. Jackson, "Allow me to retort!"
Arguments for the Second Amendment have long been tied to an armed populace, capable of suppressing an oppressive government. That is, if the Federal Government became more of a monster than our founding fathers had envisioned, they allowed for a means of correcting that situation.
Nancy Pelosi says that those who oppose her plan for health care are un-American. Harry Reid calls the protesters Evil-Mongers. For weeks now, the American People have voiced their opinions and feelings on this legislation. And they have been vilified for it. That tactic by the Liberal leaders in DC is backfiring. Attacking those who oppose has galvanized the opposition. And they are pushing back.
Elected officials have received letters and emails from their constituents. And many have been put on notice that their political careers are in jeopardy. Not so much for how they will vote, but how they react to the people. I'd hazard a guess that Arlen Specter is about to retire. After a heated town hall meeting, where he appeared to honestly listen to the concerns of his people, he turns around and makes a statement that the opposition to this legislation is "not representative of the public's view on the issue." Really? Then who were you at a town hall meeting with, if not the public?
The current leadership in DC was not elected by the Liberals or Progressives. They were elected by the Independents. The undecided. And they were elected because the country needed something different. The choices were slim. One looked too much like the last 8 years. So they chose the other.
But that doesn't mean the country, as a whole was ready to embrace the radical far left agenda. And they are being vocal about that now. The problem is the radical far left leadership cannot accept that their agenda is not acceptable to the masses. And so they attack. And vilify. And that gets a response. But it's not one they like.
Along with the threat of a loss in 2010, and 2012, the people are sending another message as well. And that message is, "Read the Second Amendment again. Understand it. Because we do."
Now, I don't know the gentleman who carried the rifle to the protest. I don't know any of the folks there who were armed. But this fellow's response when asked why he was carrying a weapon speaks volumes in a few short words. "Because I can".
Update: Through conversations with others on this matter, I would like to clarify a few points. First, I neither condemn, nor condon the actions these folks took by bringing these weapons to a protest. I am simply affirming their right to do so under state and federal law.
Second, I in no way am promoting violence against protesters, counter-protesters, or our elected officials. While the 2nd Amendment has a basis in an armed populace maintaining a check and balance against an oppresive government, it is my opinion that we are nowhere near that point, and we have many options available to us to effect changes in our government without resorting to violence.
