On Monday, it was national news when a man (identified only as "Chris") appeared at a health care rally in Phoenix, Arizona, openly and legally carrying an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a semiautomatic handgun. He was not alone. While President Obama addressed a Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) convention directly across the street, Phoenix police and Secret Service agents actively monitored "Chris" and twelve others who openly carried handguns (it is unknown how many of the protesters were carrying concealed handguns, which is also legal in Arizona with a permit).
Mr. Horwitz links to the same video we looked at yesterday in which, when asked about the AR-15, "Chris" states that "it aids me in my resistance efforts."
He goes on to say:
If the burden of all this thievery gets too thick and you can't make it anymore, if that's what's necessary, that's what's necessary. What do you think we did in the revolution, in the American Revolution? The British weren't stealing money from us for health care. They weren't taxing us the way they are now back then. And what did we do? We forcefully kicked them out of our country, and we will forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority with a vote. Just because you sick a government on people doesn't make it morally OK to steal money from them. Taxation is theft--all taxation, all taxation.
It was revealed later that the appearance of the black man they called "Chris" and his interviewer was a put-up job for a local conservative talk radio station. This explains one question I had, which was the words themselves seem much stronger than his tone of voice and delivery of them. He seemed oddly calm to me on the video, even while saying very strong things.
Now that we know it was contrived, why do you think they used a black guy? I'm sure there are several good theories about that.
Josh Horwitz sums it up pretty well.
Today's self-styled "patriots" are eager to recall 1776, but fail to understand the tempering influences of the Constitution. Armed health care protestors have made it clear that individual safety is not their primary concern--instead their show of force at these events is a reminder to elected officials that, in their view, armed citizens have the final say. This elevation of "individual sovereignty" over the Constitutionally-mandated democratic process is the antithesis of what our Founders fought for.
Do you agree with Horwitz when he says, "Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that one of the purposes of the Militia is to "suppress Insurrections," not to foment them."
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Yes, specifically mentioned:
ReplyDelete"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
Not to mention that congress has the power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
It is congress's power to arm the Milita that the Second Amendment addresses (look up the entire text of Patrick Henry's "Let every man be armed" speech, not the clip the "gun rights" crowd use).
I would also add in Article III, Section iii:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
To prove that the insurrection theory of the Second Amendment is sheer rubbish.
Laci, Thanks for stopping by and for the comment which, unlike so many around here, makes perfect sense to me. Welcome.
ReplyDelete