For the past several days I have been disturbed by the recurring imagining of the gun toting Obama opponent that was allowed to walk around the NH town hall site with w gun strapped to his leg. Reports said police were monitoring the guy but still he and thousands of other Birthist/ deathist anti Obama wackos were permitted in close proximity to the president. One gun related arrest was reported.
It wasn’t so long ago, during the Bush presidency that unarmed, passionate but not dangerous political opponents were kept in cages several blocks away from President. Demonstrators, even persons who were not demonstrators, but merely members of the opposition–democratic–party, were denied proximity.
so, my questions:
since when does one’s right to bear arms trump free speech? Why is it that attempts to forbid some gun toting nut-job from close proximity to the president are thwarted ostenisibly out of fear of intruding on his second amendment, while free speech advocates have never enjoyed such zone of privacy around their liberty?
Consider this. the first amendment is a fundamental right. The right to bear arms is not. And yet, the first amendment free speech and right to assembly has always been regulated, recentl w/ free speech zones, better known as free speech cages that were constructed some distance away from the republican conventions in 2004 and 2008.
It is one thing to countenance the fact-free attacks and hate driven tirades that are increasing in intensity around the president and the issues he cares strongly about, but adhering to the value of free speech to this country’s larger spirit of liberty and democracy. I’m all for giving them play, but think they should be shouted down.
it is quite another to hold the second amendment in a place never intended for it by the framers nor countenanced for it recently by the Court. That may be a sign of the times but given such signs, it is just plain dangerous.