Wednesday, August 26, 2009

What's Good for the Gunmen Is Good for the Thugs

For some people, civilization means being defenseless to the point where you love to kiss the jackboot in your face.

The fact that protesters at President Obama's political events have begun showing up bearing arms may be disquieting, but it's perfectly legal — and the Secret Service, charged with protecting the President, insists that it is not unduly alarmed by the development. That's because while the Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to carry guns, federal law also gives the Secret Service the right to keep gun-toting folks away from the President.

But former Secret Service agent Joseph Petro thinks his former employer may be trying to put the best face on a bad situation. "The Secret Service is very concerned about this," says Petro, who spent 23 years as an agent, including four guarding President Reagan and his family. "It's hard enough to protect the President, and this is not helpful." He pauses. "We are not a Third World country."

So being a disarmed victim of jackbooted thugs is a hallmark of development? I guess I don't have to tell you where you can shove that brand of "civilization."

While protesters in certain states may have the right to carry weapons to spots near presidential visits — and the Secret Service may blanket the President with protection — Petro says the guns' presence changes the atmosphere surrounding such events. "They're intimidating people like it's a western saloon," he says.

The Old West was the only truly civilized society that ever existed. But I guess it's not hard to understand why the jackbooted thugs want to be the only ones who are "intimidating."

And the weapons could turn a verbal clash between demonstrators into a shoot-out. "In a heated atmosphere," Petro argues, "it's a recipe for disaster."

So what are you packing, you jackbooted moron? Yep, thought so.

Most critical, according to Petro… is the message the guns send. "These guys aren't going to shoot the President," he says of the protesters. "But it's putting the idea in some nut's head that maybe he can get a gun and try to shoot him."

Maybe so. So what?

The President has the power to kill innocent people with cruise missiles and nukes. So why should he not live in fear, too?

Fair is fair. He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. If you don't want to be a bull's-eye, don't run for President.

A second man outside that event displayed a gun holstered to his leg. "I wanted people to remember the rights that we have and how quickly we're losing them in this country," William Kostric later told MSNBC. "It doesn't take a genius to see we're traveling down a road at breakneck speed that's towards tyranny." Kostric, who used to live in Arizona, said he voted for Ron Paul in the last presidential election. He carried a sign saying, "It Is Time to Water the Tree of Liberty," a reference to Thomas Jefferson's quote that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." …

Both Arizona and New Hampshire are "open-carry" states in which it is legal to carry visible weapons in public. But every gun-bearing protester requires the attention of the Secret Service and the local and state police who reinforce their efforts. "If the local police are drawn away to deal with these fools, then there's a vacuum somewhere," Petro says. "Perhaps one of those cops was supposed to be in a critical place where he or she could have stopped someone from doing something to the President. That's a real problem."

Yeah, somewhere some donuts would have needed to get eaten. Or some fool citizen would have needed to get ass-raped.

But Paul Helmke, who heads the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says such an act "endangers all in attendance" and that even if their actions are legal, "common sense" should dictate that gun owners keep their weapons away from such gatherings. "Loaded weapons at political forums endanger all involved, distract law enforcement and end up stifling debate," he says. "Presidential protesters need to leave their firearms at home — no exceptions."

Maybe. But again, fair is fair. Then the pigs and jackbooted thugs need to leave their guns in their sty, too.

Like in Limeystan. Most cops there are unarmed.

And guess what? Those bobbies are friendly.

Extending the perimeter, he suggests, makes more sense than handcuffing those with guns. "If the Secret Service started arresting these people," he says, "they'd have battles on their hands."

As they should have. For that would be open tyranny. If what little gun rights still exist are trampled into the dust so that Obama can feel a little safer, it is definitely time to fertilize the tree of liberty.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." The particularly bitter irony here is that this isn't even the usual case of depriving the minority of their liberties so that the majority can feel a little safer. This is plain and simple depriving all the people but one of their rights so that exactly one person, who gets a private 747 and much undeserved respect free of charge, can feel a little safer on top of that.

If Prince Obama can't enjoy his sinecure on account of the pea of gun rights, he should resign. I guess America will do just fine without anyone around to socialize medicine.

No comments: